Standing Committee D

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Water Bill [Lords]

Clause 98 - Adoption of lateral drains

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Bill O'Brien: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 19—Power to require adoption of private sewers— 
'After section 102 of the WIA there is inserted— 
 ''102A Power to require adoption of private sewers 
 (1) The Secretary of State may be regulations establish a scheme to enable a sewerage undertaker to be required to adopt a sewer to which this section applies. 
 (2) A scheme under this section may apply to any sewer which is— 
 (a) situated within the area of a sewerage undertaker or which serves the whole or any part of that area; and 
 (b) not vested in a sewerage undertaker. 
 (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend section 105 so as to extend the appeals procedure to the scheme, provided that the appeal shall be heard by a person other than the person imposing the requirement to adopt.''.'
 I understand that the Minister was responding to the debate when the Committee adjourned at 11.25 am.

Elliot Morley: I had almost finished on the dot; the only problem was that I was a few seconds out. I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) that he, together with others, has made a good case about the problems. There is still much work to do because we must respond properly to the consultation, which we cannot do until the beginning of next year, and evaluate the options, which will also take time. Nevertheless, it may be that an enabling power, such as the one that my hon. Friend argued for, could be useful. He will appreciate that we will have to consult parliamentary counsel, and so I ask him not to press his new clause and assure him that we will consider it on Third Reading.

Paddy Tipping: Well, what can I say? Job done; enough said. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and look forward to discussing the issues with him again on Report. I appreciate how hard he has worked and how helpful he has been on the issue, and I understand that the enabling legislation will take time to work through.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 - Requisitioning and adoption of lateral drains: supplementary

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 212, in
clause 99, page 123, line 46, after 'building', insert 
 'and is outside the curtilage of that building'.
 Welcome back to our chilly Committee Room, Mr. O'Brien. You will be amused to know that my wife has just rung to say that the boiler at my home has broken down, so this Room is home from home. 
 The amendment would ensure that the previous debate, which the Minister just summed up, does not extend to the gap between the curtilages of people's property and home. The definition of a ''lateral drain'' in the Bill could be interpreted as meaning the whole of the drain, from the building that it drains to the public sewer, and not from the boundary of the property of which the building forms a part. 
 The purpose of this enabling amendment is to clarify the exact meaning of ''curtilage of a building'' and the situation that people would face if the lateral drain between their house and the public drain were damaged. Obviously, if it is in their garden, it is their property and they must deal with it, but we are trying to tighten up the wording so that there is no misunderstanding. 
 If, as the hon. Member for Sherwood wants, all sewers are taken into the ownership of the water companies, a small section between the public sewer and the house will still be the responsibility of the homeowner. That is my understanding of the drafting, and I want to tighten up the wording so that there are no grey areas about who owns what.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The definition of a ''lateral drain'' in the Bill makes it clear that it is the part of the drain that runs from the curtilage of a building to the sewer, so it is outside the ownership of the property. The Bill deals with the fact that new drains will come under the responsibility of the sewerage undertakers. The definition already makes it clear that a lateral drain runs outside the curtilage of the building and from the curtilage to the sewer. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has given way, but my intervention may be prolonged. Lateral drain means
''that part of a drain which runs from the curtilage of a building (or buildings or yards within the same curtilage) to the sewer with which the drain communicates or is to communicate''.
 I understand that the wording attempts to define the garden—that which is outside the curtilage of the building but within the curtilage of the property.

Elliot Morley: The curtilage is the boundary of the property, and is usually the edge of the garden. The drain will be the responsibility of the householder up to that boundary. Nothing will change on that. The lateral drain runs from beyond the boundary line of the property to the main sewer.

Bill Wiggin: The matter has been properly examined. If there is ever a dispute in the future, the Minister's clarification is on record. We have a fair
 amount of business to deal with, so I will not delay the Committee further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 - Communication with public sewers

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in
clause 100, page 124, line 26, at end insert— 
 '(2A) Substitute for paragraph (b) of subsection (2)— 
 ''(b) to discharge directly or indirectly— 
 (i) foul water into a sewer provided for surface water; or 
 (ii) except with the approval of the undertaker, surface water into a sewer provided for foul water; or''.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 137, in 
clause 100, page 124, leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert— 
 '(3) Substitute for subsection (4)— 
 (4) At any time within 21 days after a sewerage undertaker receives a notice under subsection (3) above, the undertaker may by notice to the person who gave the notice— 
 (a) refuse to permit the communication to be made, if it appears to the undertaker that the mode of construction or condition of the drain or sewer— 
 (i) does not satisfy the standards reasonably required by the undertaker; or 
 (ii) is such that the making of the communication would be prejudicial to the undertaker's sewerage system; or 
 (b) where the drain or sewer which it is sought to communicate with the public sewer is to be used for the draining of surface water, refuse permission for the communication to be made, or grant permission for the communication subject to such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to taking into account the considerations set out in subsection (4A) below. 
 (4A) Under subsection (4)(b) above, a sewerage undertaker may only refuse permission for a communication to be made, or grant permission for the communication subject to conditions, where it has reasonable grounds for considering that— 
 (a) it is feasible for an alternative method of drainage to be provided, utilised, maintained and kept in repair— 
 (i) which does not involve communication with the public sewer; but 
 (ii) which may include the provision of a lateral drain or sewer by any of the means provided for in this Chapter; 
 (b) this is justifiable taking into account the relative cost to the applicant of— 
 (i) providing the alternative method of drainage referred to in paragraph (a) above; or 
 (ii) requisitioning a lateral drain or sewer under sections 98 to 101B above for communication with the public sewer of the undertaker; 
 (c) where communication of the drains or sewer with the public sewer might contribute towards one or more of the following— 
 (i) the overloading of the public sewer or the sewerage system of which it forms part, and the consequential overflowing of its contents and the flooding of adjoining property or land; 
 (ii) the overloading of any sewage disposal works forming part of or connected with the system, so adversely affecting such work's capacity to treat or dispose of 
sewage in compliance with any statutory requirement or consent applicable to it; 
 (iii) increased flows in and resulting overflows and discharges from combined foul and surface water sewers which may have adverse effects on the aquatic environment; or 
 (iv) the pollution of inland waters, the flooding of property or land, or the impairment of river or drainage systems, whether or not arising from the matters described in paragraphs (i), (ii) or (iii) above.''.'.
 Amendment No. 139, in 
clause 100, page 124, line 43, at end insert— 
 '(5A) Substitute for subsection (9)— 
 ''(9) In this section— 
 (a) 'factory' has the same meaning as in the Factories Act 1961; 
 (b) 'inland waters' has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1991; 
 (c) 'sewer provided for surface water' and 'sewer provided for foul water' excludes any sewer provided for the combined drainage of both surface and foul water.''.'.

Bill Wiggin: Once again, we discuss sewerage. In this case, we are dealing with the difficulty that sewerage companies face in dealing with foul water—water that, perhaps, has come from a lavatory—as opposed to surface water, which may have run off the road. Those are very different types of water, and there is a different demand and supply for them. For example, if there is a thunderstorm, a huge amount of surface water is generated, but that will not necessarily correspond to the amount of foul water. The problem is that when water flows into the sewers, it can be of both types. That means that cloudbursts or sudden flash floods can cause the foul water in the sewerage to flood.
 We need to ensure that surface water is kept separate in calculating the sewerage capacity required, and that is what we seek to do in amendment No. 136. That means that the sewers that are provided for foul water will be able to cope, because foul water is a regular flow, which is understood. Run-off water is a different kettle of fish, however, and we must ensure that not all the water is pushed into the same type of sewer. The question of allowing access to the public sewer from new developments must therefore be handled carefully, and the amendment seeks also to address that.

Norman Baker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he suggesting a duplicate system for surface water, in parallel with the one for foul water?

Bill Wiggin: No, I am not suggesting duplicate systems. I am attempting to ensure that when the calculation is made for foul water, it takes proper consideration of the surface water, particularly when a new sewer is installed and taps into an old sewer. If more houses are built, there will be less land to absorb water; areas such as roofs and concrete drives will contribute to a large amount of surface water suddenly running into the foul water drainage system. At present, that is not being calculated properly, and it is not included in the Bill in the way that I would like. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Gentleman for demonstrating that we should think separately about those two types of water, although they will still run
 into the same holes and the same sewerage system. However, we must ensure that the calculation is done differently.

Elliot Morley: The Bill already allows undertakers to refuse connections to the sewerage system if they think that that will cause flooding. They have that power now. If they think that there is a problem they can refuse to allow the connection, and the developers can appeal to Ofwat if they feel that the decision is unfair.
 The crux of the problem was touched upon by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). If the drains are not connected to the sewers where do they go? What does one do? A range of alternatives can be looked at. The Department takes this seriously. It is an important issue, particularly when one is dealing with surface run-off in times of exceptional rainfall. The Environment Agency is currently chairing a working group looking at the range of available options. It produced a consultation paper in May 2003 on design standards entitled ''Framework for Sustainable Drainage Systems in England and Wales''. 
 The working group recently discussed the responses and is considering how to take the issues forward. One of the key issues raised by respondents was the need to clarify responsibility for ownership and ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage systems. My Department is currently undertaking work to address those issues and to prepare specific policy proposals for a further consultation document to be published by spring 2004. 
 All surface water disposal arrangements will have to be examined, including the issue of enforceable ownership and maintenance responsibilities. I am referring more to sustainable urban drainage systems than the drains themselves. The various options such as balancing ponds, wetlands and reed beds will be considered. I have seen one or two innovative examples of sustainable urban drainage systems. However, there are arguments about who takes over the maintenance, the management and the responsibility. That has not been resolved yet.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If one has a right of access in the deeds of one's house which is legally binding and allows one to get to the drains, would that be affected if the sewers were adopted?

Elliot Morley: We are going back in time—that question relates to an earlier clause, but I think that I can answer it. If a person has a right of access to drains, it will not be changed because it is a right of access within the deeds of the property. Such a right generally relates to the curtilage. If the responsibility of maintenance outside the curtilage goes to the undertakers, it should not be a problem for the owner-occupier. But there will be no change in relation to the right of access to manholes and for rodding and so on.
 We are looking at the wider issues of sustainable urban drainage and sewer flooding. The undertakers now have the power to refuse connection if they think that there is a problem. There are some quite complex issues, but they can be resolved. That is what we are in the process of doing. The hon. Member for Leominster 
 (Mr. Wiggin) raised some important points, which we accept and are trying to address.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He will see that that is largely what we attempt to do in amendment No. 137. The wording in the Bill was not as clear as it might have been. The Minister addressed much of that. A problem that will have to be dealt with at some stage is whether undertakers have the right to refuse the connection on the basis that the standards are below their acceptable standards or because it would be prejudicial to their sewerage system.
 It will be difficult for the Minister to deal with everything that we discussed in the previous debate. There is a problem with substandard and home-made lateral drains and sewerage connections. We have tried to ensure that the industry is not burdened with costs that it cannot expect reasonably to offset.

Elliot Morley: The problem again relates to the retrospective situation. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the building regulations have been changed under H5, which now has a requirement for separate systems of drainage for new build. That means that a separate system has to be put in place to ensure that rain water is diverted from the sewer systems. In some ways, the problem has been resolved for the future; the inheritance is the difficulty.

Bill Wiggin: I recognise that and I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention.

Andrew Lansley: As I understand it—I am stretching to recall the circumstances—even on some recent occasions since the introduction of the building regulations to which the Minister refers, the issue has been enforcement. Some small developments, even individual properties, have made unauthorised connections into the sewer system, rather than go to the expense of putting in separate drainage for surface water. That can contribute to some sewer flooding where there is exceptional run-off.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our amendment would prevent all water going down the same hole and would ensure that the hole was of an adequate size. He put that point well, and I am grateful to him. Will the Minister also confirm that, in amendment No. 139, the definitions of ''factory'', ''inland waters'',
''sewer provided for surface water''
 and 
''sewer provided for foul water''
 are as the amendment would suggest? I am sure that they are, but can he confirm that? We have a problem with cowboy builders—for want of a better expression—and that is particularly worrying, considering that consultation is taking place about adopting some of the more historical privately owned sewerage systems. There is a danger that new build will take advantage of the Government's good intentions and builders will construct it to a substandard level, on the basis that they know that they will soon hand it over to a water company. I urge the Government to be 
 mindful of that and to be extremely alert to what may take place in future.

Elliot Morley: On amendment No. 139, I was not clear whether the hon. Gentleman was asking whether the definitions in his amendments were consistent. Is he asking that?

Bill Wiggin: The amendment would confirm the definitions. That may not be necessary, and I am hoping that the Minister will confirm that.

Elliot Morley: It is difficult to speak on the hon. Gentleman's amendments. On the definition of ''inland waters'', I assume that he is referring to the Water Resources Act 1991. I have a feeling that the definition was slightly different as applied to the Bill. The term ''factory'' in his amendment is the same as in the Factories Act 1961; ''inland waters'' has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1991; the other points concerning sewers for surface water are not required in those definitions.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for replying to amendment No. 139. I have no problem with withdrawing all my amendments, but I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications and the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). We have touched a nerve, and the Government will have to take that into consideration if they are to do what the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) wanted, when they take all the previously privately owned sewers into the ownership of the water companies. There will clearly be another water Bill when that happens. We shall revisit this issue, perhaps on Report, but certainly under that Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in
clause 100, page 124, leave out lines 39 to 43 and insert— 
 '(5) Substitute for subsection (6)— 
 ''(6) Any question arising under subsections (3) to (5A) above between a sewerage undertaker and a person proposing to make a communication as to— 
 (a) the reasonableness of the undertaker's refusal to permit a connection to be made, or the reasonableness of the conditions on which the undertaker is prepared to permit a communication to be made; or 
 (b) as to the reasonableness of any requirement under subsections (5) or (5A) above, 
 may, on the application of that person, be determined by the Authority under section 30A above (and accordingly section 105 above shall not apply to any requirement under subsection (5A) above). 
 (6A) In making a determination under subsection (6)(a) above, the Director shall consult and take into account the views of the Environment Agency and any affected riparian owners.''.'.
 The amendment is similar to the previous amendments and we are seeking again to ensure that the definitions are consistent, concise and fair. Judging from the way in which the debate has flowed today, that question is still up in the air. I hope that the Government will include this type of issue in their consultation, certainly that with the professionals who 
 they hope will take over the privately owned sewers. There is an implicit compliment in that people feel that they are the best equipped to run sewers. I agree with that, but we must be mindful of how we work out how it is paid for. I would prefer stamp duty, as I said earlier, but that is because there will be area charges which will be difficult unless we find a way of smoothing things out.

Elliot Morley: This proposal, too, deals with sewer flooding, who should be consulted and what should be taken into account in relation to connection.
 I take the opportunity to correct the hon. Gentleman about the previous debate on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood. The Government have not conceded that private sewers are to be taken over by the sewerage companies. What we said is that we are willing to consider an enabling measure in the Bill if after the consultation, discussion and consideration it is thought to be the best way forward. That is what we were discussing earlier. I make it absolutely clear that no decision has been taken. 
 An authority may wish to refuse connection for a variety of reasons and the amendment would put the matter into the category on which there would have to be an automatic consultation on every connection, which is unnecessary. For example, the debate might be about the suitability of a particular type of fitting. We would not expect Ofwat to have a formal consultation with the Environment Agency or riparian owners on such a minor change. 
 The amendment also does not list other important potential consultees such as local authorities or the Consumer Council for Water. It could not be justified to single out the Environment Agency and riparian owners, because there are other interested people. There is no need to prescribe as rigidly as the amendment; there will be wide consultation, which is the reason for the working parties. All interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to make their case and to have it taken into account.

Bill Wiggin: The water companies, who have every reason to want the matter clarified, will have heard what the Minister said. The wording in my proposal may be too prescriptive. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101 - Devolution: Wales

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in
clause 101, page 125, line 42, leave out 'or mainly'.

Bill O'Brien: With this we may take amendment No. 118, in
clause 101, page 126, line 26, leave out 'or mainly'.

Bill Wiggin: The amendment is very similar to an earlier amendment. It would deal with water or sewerage undertakers whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales. I intended the measure to deal with undertakers who are wholly, rather than mainly, in
 Wales but in a previous reply the Minister explained that because of the way in which the areas are divided up there are few that are wholly in Wales. Nearly all the companies on the borders have a small area that goes over the border and thus would be precluded. Unless the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) wants to dive in, we do not need to pursue the matter. I hope that the Minister will confirm that I am right.

Simon Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman has conceded his ground, I will not discuss the amendment, which is as ill conceived this time as it was the first time around. However, I take the opportunity to question the Minister. My reading of the clause, whether it is amended or not, as the hon. Gentleman half suggested, is that it will enable the National Assembly for Wales to decide on the construction of new reservoirs in Wales, whether the reservoirs provide water wholly or mainly for Wales or for England. Can the Minister confirm that my interpretation is correct? I hope that it is, because it is important that the construction of reservoirs in Wales, which directly affects the Welsh communities, landscape and environment, is decided as a planning matter by the National Assembly and not a Westminster Department.

Elliot Morley: As I mentioned earlier, the construction of reservoirs in Wales is primarily a planning issue and would come under the power of the National Assembly for Wales.
 Amendments Nos. 117 and 118 would restrict some of the National Assembly's water regulation functions to undertakers that operate entirely in Wales. We have already debated amendment No. 78 under clause 43, and we established that no undertaker serves an area wholly in Wales. The amendments would therefore exclude the Assembly, and the Secretary of State would have to exercise his powers throughout England and Wales. That is not the Bill's intention. We have dealt with areas that fall wholly in England, and those points were properly examined and the provisions are there. However, we would not want to undermine the Welsh Assembly's powers, as the amendments would.

Bill Wiggin: Oh yes we would.

Elliot Morley: I thought that that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention, but apparently it is.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister is absolutely right that it is not my intention to undermine the powers of the Assembly. Offa's dyke is in my constituency and I am nervous that it might soon be Offa's dam.
 We have had a clear debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 - Minor and consequential amendments and repeals

Amendment made: No. 302, in 
clause 102, page 128, line 15, after first 'amendments', insert 
 '(including the repeal of certain spent enactments)'.—[Mr. Morley.]
 Clause 102, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 - Minor and consequential amendments

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in
schedule 7, page 185, line 35, leave out paragraph 4. 
On my notes is written, ''Why not convert?'' and that is the question that I seek to raise with the amendment.

Elliot Morley: I thought that might be political.

Bill Wiggin: No, we are certainly having none of that—I had enough of that from my predecessor.
 Schedule 7(4) concerns changing licences from one type to another. I ask the question, ''Why not convert?'' because why should someone not be able to convert one type of abstraction licence to another? It is not a contentious question. I understand that three types of licence are included in the Bill, and if someone should want to convert or prolong a licence, I do not see why that should not be possible.

Elliot Morley: Section 51 of the Water Resources Act 1991 allows a licence holder to apply to vary the terms of an existing licence. Paragraph (4) of schedule 7 expressly prevents the use of section 51 to change the type of licence, so, for example, a full licence cannot be converted to a transfer licence. The holder would need to apply to the agency to surrender the old licence and be issued with a new one to go through the proper procedures.
 Amendment No. 130 would remove that restriction and allow a change in licence type to be a variation on an existing licence. However, changing the type of licence is not a change in terms. A new licence would then be required. I am talking about a transfer licence, a time-limited licence or the existing unlimited one. If a holder wants to change his type of licence, he can do so as I have indicated, but he must go through that process, rather than a variation.

Bill Wiggin: Is there not a real danger that people will be tempted to take up abstraction licences, to go through the process and then use them on a one-off basis, simply to continue their ownership of them as a safeguard, perhaps in case of a water shortage in the near future? Because they cannot move from, say, a transfer licence to a full licence or vice versa, there is a possibility that a water company that needed to be able to abstract and had a licence to do so, but did not really need it, would simply hog the licence to prevent anyone else from having it. Otherwise, when there was a water shortage, it would have to go through the whole process again, and it would very likely be turned down. That is why we need a certain flexibility in the Bill and why I seek to clarify the point.

Elliot Morley: The Bill deals with that. Let us say that someone applies to obtain a licence. One of the conditions for getting a licence is that the applicant has to show a requirement for a licence. If someone is surrendering an old licence and applying for a new one, the same conditions would apply. They would
 have to demonstrate a need for the licence. In addition, if they did not use it for four years, it could be withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply—well, in fact I am not that grateful because the Minister has not addressed the problem. Yes, every four years someone would have to use their licence, but a company could do that. The shame of this is that people will apply for licences unnecessarily, on the basis that they may need them at some unknown future date. They will take action to continue to roll over those licences.
 That means that many people who would like a licence will not be able to get one, because they will not be able to justify it environmentally. Because this part of the Bill rules out flexibility, that is more, rather than less, likely to happen. I am prepared to concede that it is not guaranteed to happen, but I imagine that a bit of flexibility would be constructive. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister has received a little note; perhaps there will be something interesting in it for me.

Elliot Morley: The situation is not very different from the one that I described to the hon. Gentleman. The licences as they are issued now can be very different. They will have conditions attached to them. Some will have protected rights conditions; some will specify volumes. There are abstraction licences and transfer licences, which can be very different things. If a licence holder wants to change a licence to which conditions apply, the best way will be to surrender it and make a fresh application, rather than a variation, so that it can be evaluated properly, whatever the new licence is; otherwise, control over the management of licences will be lost. That is why I argue strongly against the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 303, in 
schedule 7, page 186, line 16, after 'access;', insert 'or'.
 No. 304, in 
schedule 7, page 190, line 14, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Environment Act 1995 is amended as follows.'.
 No. 305, in 
schedule 7, page 190, line 15, leave out 
 'of the Environment Act 1995' 
 and insert 
 '(general provisions with respect to water)'.
 No. 306, in 
schedule 7, page 190, line 22, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Schedule 22 (amendment of enactments), paragraph 181 is omitted.'.
 No. 307, in 
schedule 7, page 192, line 43, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Schedule 3 (Director General of Water Services), paragraphs 6 and 7 are omitted. 
 ( ) In Schedule 4 (customer service committees), paragraph 6 is omitted. 
 ( ) In Schedule 25 (amendment of enactments), paragraphs 68(2)(a) and 76(a) are omitted.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in
schedule 7, page 193, line 9, at end insert— 
 '(3A) In section 144B (restriction on undertakers' power to require fixing of charges by reference to volume)— 
 (a) at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there is inserted— 
 ''that is 'household premises' as defined in subsection (5) below,''; 
 (b) at the end of the section there is inserted— 
 ''(5) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above, ''household premises'' shall have the same meaning as in section 17C of this Act.''.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 26—Metering— 
'(1) In section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (powers of undertakers to charge), in subsection (2), ''(2A),'' is omitted. 
 (2) In section 142 of the Water Industry Act (charges schemes) subsections 2A and 2B are omitted. 
 (3) In section 143 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (charges schemes), in subsection (5)(a), ''in a case not falling within section 142(2A) above'' is omitted. 
 (4) In section 144A of the Water Industry Act 1991 (right of consumer to elect for charging by reference to volume), subsections (5), (6), (7), (8) and (10) are omitted. 
 (5) After subsection 144A of the Water Industry Act 1991 (Right of consumer to elect for charging by reference to volume), there is inserted— 
 ''144AA Arrangements for introduction of metering 
 (1) Where— 
 (a) water is supplied by a water undertaker to premises in which, or in any part of which, a person has his home; 
 (b) charges in respect of those premises are fixed by virtue of any charges scheme under section 143 above without reference to the volume of water supplied; and 
 (c) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State through regulation are also satisfied in relation to the premises, and to the occupants of those premises, 
 the undertaker may at any time give the consumer a notice (in this section referred to as a ''company measured charges notice'') allowing the undertaker to fix charges in respect of the supply by reference to the volume of water supplied. 
 (2) Before making such regulations as are permitted by subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall— 
 (a) consult— 
 (i) the Authority, 
 (ii) the Council, 
 (iii) the Assembly, 
 (iv) relevant undertakers, 
 (v) the Environment Agency; and 
 such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and 
 (b) publish the draft regulations for public consultation. 
 (3) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to— 
 (a) the interests of— 
 (i) households with an occupant or occupants with low incomes; 
 (ii) households with an occupant or occupants of pensionable age; 
 (iii) households with an occupant or occupants who have a medical condition which causes significant levels of water use; 
 (b) the furtherance of water conservation; 
 (c) the particular circumstances in areas of water scarcity; and 
 (d) the promotion of economy and efficiency on the part of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act in carrying out the duties of a relevant undertaker. 
 (4) A water undertaker may not give effect to a company measured charges notice before the end of a period determined in accordance with the undertaker's charges scheme. 
 (5) If and so long as a water undertaker is entitled under subsection (4) above to fix charges for the supply of water in respect of any premises by reference to the volume of water supplied, a sewerage undertaker is under a corresponding obligation to fix charges in respect of foul water drainage provided by the sewerage undertaker in respect of those premises by reference to that volume. 
 (6) Any charges scheme under section 143 above— 
 (a) must contain provision for determining the period mentioned in subsection (4) above, and 
 (b) shall have effect subject to the preceding provisions of this section. 
 (7) In this section ''household premises'' has the meaning as defined in section 17C above.''. 
 (6) In section 144B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (restriction on change in basis of charging), for subsection (2) there is substituted— 
 ''(2) Where this subsection applies, a relevant undertaker may not by virtue of any charges scheme under section 143 above begin to fix the charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume unless either— 
 (a) the consumer— 
 (i) has given the undertaker a measured charges notice under section 144A above, or 
 (ii) has consented to the charges in respect of the premises being so fixed, or 
 (b) the undertaker has given the consumer a company measured charges notice under section 144A above, or 
 (c) the fixing of charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume is required under section 148A below, or 
 (d) there has been a change in the occupation of the premises and no charges have yet been demanded from the person who has become the consumer.'' 
 (7) After section 144B of the Water Industry Act 1991, there is inserted— 
 ''144C Metering charges 
 Charges and other amounts to which this section applies shall not, by virtue of anything contained— 
 (a) in this Chapter; 
 (b) in any local statutory provision; 
 (c) in any charges scheme under section 143 above; or 
 (d) in any agreement entered into on or after 1st September 1989, be recoverable by a relevant undertaker from any person if they have been fixed wholly or partly by reference to a rating valuation list or are otherwise determined, whether directly or indirectly, by reference to any value or other amount specified at any time in such a list. 
 (2) This section applies to— 
 (a) charges in respect of any services provided at any time after the end of 31st March 2018 by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions; and 
 (b) amounts of any other description which such an undertaker, in exercise of any power conferred by or under any enactment, requires any person to pay in respect of any period ending after that date or in respect of anything done after that date. 
 (3) In this section ''rating valuation list'' means a list which is or has at any time been maintained, for the purposes of rating, under section 41 or 52 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c.41), 
section 67 of the General Rate Act 1967 (c.9) or any other enactment.'' 
 (8) After section 148 of the Water Industry Act 1991 there is inserted— 
 ''148A Charges by volume, etc 
 (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall, not later than the end of 31st March 2018, by regulations require all water undertakers to fix charges in respect of the supply by reference to the volume of water supplied for all household premises and to instal any meter in household premises to be used in determining the amount of any such charges. 
 (2) The requirements of subsection (1) above do not apply— 
 (a) to household premises— 
 (i) that share a supply pipe with one or more other premises; 
 (ii) where it is not reasonably practicable to instal any meter to be used in determining the amount of any charges; and 
 (b) to other household premises as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may be regulations require all water undertakers to ensure that all customers in household premises, such as are excluded from the provisions of subsection (1) above by subsection (2) above, are charged by reference to the volume of water supplied and that meters are installed in household premises to be used in determining the amount of any such charges; and that this is achieved by such times as may be prescribed. 
 (4) Before making such regulations as are required by subsections (1) to (3) above the Secretary of State shall— 
 (a) consult— 
 (i) the Authority, 
 (ii) the Council, 
 (iii) the Assembly, 
 (iv) relevant undertakers, 
 (v) the Environment Agency; and 
 (vi) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and 
 (b) publish the draft regulations for public consultation. 
 (5) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to— 
 (a) the interests of— 
 (i) households with an occupant or occupants with low incomes; 
 (ii) households with an occupant or occupants of pensionable age; 
 (iii) households with an occupant or occupants who have a medical condition which causes significant levels of water use; 
 (b) the furtherance of water conservation; 
 (c) the particular circumstances in areas of water scarcity; and 
 (d) the promotion of economy and efficiency on the part of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act in carrying out the duties of a relevant undertaker. 
 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for transferring to the Authority powers and functions for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above, including— 
 (a) modification of appointment conditions to meet the requirements of subsections (1) to (3) above, and 
 (b) imposition of penalties under section 22A above following the failure of a water undertaker to meet the requirements of sections (1) to (3) above. 
 (7) In this section ''household premises'' has the meaning as defined in section 17C above.''.'.

Bill Wiggin: I shall speak only to amendment No. 101. This fairly straightforward little amendment would be tacked on to the end of paragraph 27(3) of
 schedule 7, which deals with regional committees—that term is enough to send a shiver up anyone's spine. The amendment refers to
''undertakers' power to require fixing of charges by reference to volume''.
 We have had a long debate on issues of volume, and the amendment is designed to qualify them. I hope that it finds favour with the Government, but I suspect that it will not.

Norman Baker: I shall address my remarks to new clause 26, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). Members will know that I have referred to metering on Second Reading and during this Committee, and I want to explain in some detail why it is the correct way forward. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the new clause is detailed, so he will not be able to use the standard response that there is no detail. He will have to use his other response and tell us what is wrong with the detail. I look forward to it.
 The new clause is what Sir Humphrey might have called courageous, as it is not without political risk, but we have proposed it because we think that it is right. Unlike gas or electricity, bills for which are based on consumption, water has historically been charged on the notional 1973 rateable value of the property—in other words, the amount for which someone could theoretically have rented out their house in 1973. That is an odd way of charging for water, especially as that value, if it had any meaning to start with, is 30 years old. 
 The 1991 Act conceded that water companies should no longer use rateable value and provided that its use would no longer be permitted beyond 31 March 2000. That decision was subsequently overturned. We now have an odd no-man's land in which companies use both rateable value and metering, which gives us the worst of all possible worlds. We are moving by stealth towards universal metering, but the Government do not want to champion it overtly. They are waiting for people to make their individual choices and for water companies to push the idea in the hope that we get universal metering without the Government doing anything. 
 That is a fundamentally dishonest policy, which has its own dangers. The current hybrid situation represents a worse solution than basing everything on rateable value, because there is a cross-subsidy from unmetered to metered properties. That is not something that people want to see in terms of social justice. 
 The new clause would prevent water companies from using rateable values as a basis for water charging, effective from 31 March 2018. We have built in the long lead-in period in recognition of the fact that such changes cannot be achieved overnight. We must consider the infrastructure and how quickly we can introduce universal metering throughout the country, and having talked to water companies, we believe that 15 years is a reasonably generous period. I 
 hope that that deals with the practicality of whether we could achieve the change in that period.

Andrew Lansley: Before we go too far into the discussion of the hon. Gentleman's metering proposals, will he clarify whether he intends the metering to be strictly based on the volume of water supplied or whether he wants the charges to be levied in relation to the variable costs of water supply in which fixed costs are attributed to each customer on the basis on which those costs arise? Does he intend that the fixed costs should still be varied according to the volume of water consumed?

Norman Baker: My preference would be for the system to operate in the same way as electricity and gas. There would be a minimal standing charge, together with costs according to volume. I would also want to see rising tariffs providing a disincentive to use a greater amount of water.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman's reply is interesting and not what I expected. It is interesting because the structure of costs in the water industry is different from gas and electricity, and the variable cost of water is a far smaller proportion of the total cost than the variable costs of either gas or electricity. I see no reason to suppose that, if one were charging only on the basis of the variable cost of water supply, there would be any incentive to water conservation, because the variation in charge would be very limited. The application of a standing charge, if it were unrelated to the rateable value, would mean that cross-subsidisation from expensive properties to cheaper ones would be removed.

Norman Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me develop my arguments, because he has intervened at an early point in the case that I am making. I have indicated that if there were a standing charge, it should be low. I am ambivalent about whether there should be such a charge—on balance, perhaps, I think that there should. However, I believe that there should be an increase in tariffs on the amount of water consumed, to give an incentive to reduce water consumption.

Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Norman Baker: Yes. I am trying to make a case, but I will give way.

Simon Thomas: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do, but I should like him to clarify a point. Does he intend the standing charge to include a certain amount of water that can be consumed under that standing charge before the extra charges for variable amounts of consumption are incurred? Will the standing charge allow for an average household's consumption, with more to be paid on top, or will the standing charge apply whether one uses no water at all or a little water?

Norman Baker: The answer is that the new clause allows either solution to be introduced; it is not prescriptive. However, I would want there to be rising tariffs at a key point. It could be that a given amount of water could be taken under the standing charge arrangement, and then a rising tariff applied according to consumption, to act as a disincentive to use of water
 beyond the point at which increased consumption might become environmentally disadvantageous.
 The new clause would require the Secretary of State to put in place a strategy for attainment of comprehensive water metering by 31 March 2018 and, in the interim, it would enable water companies to introduce compulsory metering, when the Secretary of State allowed it. In that way, metering would be implemented gradually, with the expectation that it would occur first in areas where there is currently a water shortage, such as the south-east, and that the areas where water supply is less of a problem would be left until later. 
 The new clause would implement comprehensive metering to a set timetable. The Government are currently allowing metering to be introduced by stealth, and should make up their mind whether they regard metering as a good idea. The 1991 Act initially suggested that it should be phased out. New consumers may choose to switch from rateable value to metering, but there is no choice for those who come into a property that is already metered—they have to inherit it. 
 The water companies have made it plain to us that it is not possible to carry on indefinitely with the current legislation, which is based on that hybrid solution. They say that there is a cross-subsidy from unmetered to metered customers that will be unsustainable as the number of metered customers continues to grow. Those who are opposed to metering must face that fundamental point.

Kevin Brennan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee, from the discussions that he had with the water companies, how many of those companies are in favour of compelling people to transfer to water meters, as he suggests, and how many are not?

Norman Baker: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute figure. I have spoken to the water bodies collectively—to Water UK—and to individual companies in my patch, and to several others throughout the UK. None of them wants compulsory metering, but all recognise that the current situation cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Kevin Brennan: If the hon. Gentleman cannot do that—I realise that it might be a bit much—can he tell us one company that is in favour and one that is not?

Norman Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that South East Water recognises the need for compulsory metering, and it has been helpful in drafting the new clause under discussion. No doubt other companies are opposed to it, and I am sure that hon. Members will draw attention to them in their own contributions to the debate.
 I do not want to lose the last point that I made—one which hon. Members must address in the interests of equity and fairness to consumers who are not well off. At present, creeping metering happens where people perceive that switching to metering is of direct economic interest to their own situation. The figures to which I referred earlier are in a parliamentary answer 
 provided to me by the Minister earlier this year. They indicate that the average metered bill is significantly lower than the average unmetered bill in every company area except Portsmouth. That means that those who are unmetered are providing a cross-subsidy to those who are metered. It is often the poorest who are unmetered. That should not be allowed to continue. We must address that in some way. My preferred solution is to have universal metering. In a sense the alternative solution is rateable value. The present hybrid arrangements are unsustainable.

Nick Palmer: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that one of the reasons for that difference may be that metered customers use less water?

Norman Baker: Of course metered customers use less water. The very fact that they are metered acts as in incentive to use less water. But there is an overall cost to the water supply as they are paying less than they would have done under rateable value. The income that the water company would have received has to be obtained somewhere else and is a cost to other householders.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one company that is against water metering is Glas Cymru, which, to my knowledge, is the only water company in the UK that has been set up as a public interest company not to make a profit but to serve the interests of its consumers?

Norman Baker: I was not aware of that. I am grateful for the information, which is doubtless a fact to be considered. I do not pretend that these situations are black and white. But I am sure that the metering by stealth, which has been going on for 13 or 14 years, cannot be allowed to continue. We need a clear statement of Government policy, which my new clause is designed to elicit. There are arguments for and against.
 We support metering despite the fact that it has downsides. I do not pretend that everything is rosy. There is a short-term transitional cost. There are infrastructure costs in implementing the system and installing meters but we believe that in the long term the effect of stemming the forecast growth in demand will benefit the consumer by keeping bills lower and benefit the environment by limiting the growth in abstraction. If water consumption can be capped, the need to invest in longer-term infrastructure such as new reservoirs is obviated. 
 Metering trials took place in the early 1990s. The final summary report from the national metering trials working group states: 
''The Water Industry Act 1991 requires that water companies can no longer use rateable values as a basis for charging after 31st March 2000.''
 That has been overtaken by events. 
''The metering trials have shown that customers, by and large, accept the idea of paying by volume and that there can be a significant effect on demand.''
 It is a given from the studies that took place that demand can be reduced by metering. Indeed, the study 
 in the Isle of Wight, which was the most comprehensive of all the studies, showed a 21 per cent. reduction in demand for water. I am happy to accept that that may be to some extent an unreliable figure. For example, an attempt was made at the same time to introduce leakage controls. Nevertheless I am in doubt that water can be saved by metering.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the very point that I wanted him to address. Although his attempt to achieve greater water conservation is undoubtedly the right approach, about 18 per cent. of our water is still lost through leakage before it even gets to the customer. I wonder whether his new clause addresses the real problem in the industry, which is downstream from the customer.

Norman Baker: There are a number of problems with water. One is the failure of the public authorities to conserve it properly. We tried to deal with that this morning and only partly succeeded. There is the problem of technology and how one can design toilets that do not waste water. There is the problem of leakage in pipes and how one deals with householders' pipes, particularly the section from the tap to the main connection which is privately owned and where most of the leakage now takes place.
 There is a whole range of problems relating to the loss of water. We are trying to address one of them. I have never pretended that it is the only issue, but it is one of them. If electricity were based on rateable value people might decide to keep the lights on, but as they pay for it people are more careful about how they use electricity. I want the same philosophy to apply to how people use water.

Richard Burden: The national water metering trials in the early 1990s, which considered the impact of metering, came in for a lot of criticism on the grounds that the areas chosen were far from typical. One argument advanced then was that the Isle of Wight does not have many high-rise blocks of flats, which cause technical problems when introducing water metering. Has the hon. Gentleman thought about how reliable those metering trials were?

Norman Baker: Yes, I have. I discussed the matter at length with Southern Water, which is a local company. The Isle of Wight was the biggest area in which tests were carried out and probably produced the most reliable figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it may be dangerous to extrapolate too widely from the results in the smaller areas. The Isle of Wight was a large test area and it is reasonable to draw conclusions from it.
 The new clause addresses the issue of high-rise blocks. It recognises that there must be different arrangements for areas and premises in which individual households could not be metered, such as metering a block of flats and subdividing the bill, but that is not specified in the proposal. However, the new clause recognises that there is a problem in high-rise 
 blocks and other buildings and contains a measure to deal with it. 
 The National Consumer Council report, ''Towards a Sustainable Water Charging Policy'', published in 2002, states that in New York 600,000 were converted to charging by volume between 1988 and 1998. As a consequence, the water company was able to postpone indefinitely a huge investment programme to develop further water supply resources. It is clear, first, that the installation of meters suppresses demand and, secondly, by doing so it obviates the need for long-term infrastructure investment, which means lower consumer bills in the longer term.

Diana Organ: I go along with the philosophy that we should be considering efficient ways of using water in the infrastructure. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the most successful boys' urinals in new primary schools, such as Hopebrook in my constituency, are completely dry? As a Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman, like me, will have to visit many boys' urinals in primary schools. A new design is being used that does not need water, so it does not smell and is extremely efficient. We should consider every measure by which to cut down on the unnecessary use of water in new infrastructure.

Norman Baker: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. It shows another means of saving and conserving water. I am not over-familiar with boys' urinals but I take her point. [Interruption.] Not for a long time, anyway. I will bear in mind what she said the next time I am near a boys' urinal.
 I return to my response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Ceredigion. A lot can be done generally to save water and the hon. Lady mentioned one means of doing so, but it is important, because it has got people who use water to consider how much they use, and whether they need to use it. I am in no doubt that water metering will suppress demand, obviate infrastructure investment and keep bills down. It is also fairer, by and large, that people pay for what they use rather than pay some notional amount based on 1973 rateable values, which is indefensible. I want someone to defend that position in a moment. 
 The arguments about water metering are not all for or against. The real issue is to ensure that any system that is introduced does not adversely affect the poorest people. That concern is probably why successive Governments have not pushed ahead with the proposal, and perhaps why, in 1997, the new Labour Government pulled back from the 1991 Act, which would have required universal metering. 
 The changes in subsections (5) and (6) of the new clause give water companies the power to require customers to install a meter and to be charged volumetrically, but they give the Secretary of State power to have regard to important factors such as the needs of low-income consumers and areas of water scarcity. The Secretary of State is given room for manoeuvre to deal with those groups and to take extensive consultation. The new clause provides that he must give particular consideration to vulnerable customers such as the poorest families and those with 
 medical conditions requiring high usage. Those conditions must be satisfied and the matter sorted out before water metering can be introduced. 
 The Government recognise the need for vulnerable groups to be protected in respect of water metering in the regulations, but water companies and Water Voice have told us that those regulations do not work at present. There is little take-up, they are not understood, the forms are hugely complex and they do not help the target audience for which they were designed. Irrespective of anything else in the new clause, the Government need to review the regulations to ensure that they work. 
 Our overall intent is to balance the interests of the environment, consumers and water companies to provide a timetable for universal metering by 2018, to ensure that particular consideration is given to vulnerable customers in drafting the necessary regulations, and to charge substantially by volume. There should be rising tariffs which mean that the first use of water will be cheaper than later uses, although it is important not to penalise the essential use of water. We want to ensure that water companies are fully involved in the consultation process and to provide the Secretary of State with sufficient room to manoeuvre on the issue of vulnerable groups, taking into account the difficulty of metering properties. The concerns expressed in the amendment and the new clause are linked to our earlier amendment on water poverty. The Minister agreed that the regulations on vulnerable groups needed to be improved. 
 It is not practical or honest to proceed with the hybrid system of water metering by stealth. Some time in the future there will be universal metering. It will happen because water will become more scarce, especially in the south-east, for example; because as people move around, consumers who had water meters will choose that system for their new premises; and because there will be pressure from the water companies. If there is to be universal metering, it is better to manage the process properly. The Government should be open about it, have proper consultations with the affected groups and introduce a system that deals with the issue I have raised, ensuring that the vulnerable are properly protected. A system that is brought in by stealth would not do those things.

Robert Key: My water system is metered in my constituency home and in my London home. Is the hon. Gentleman's water metered at both ends?

Norman Baker: It is certainly metered in my house in Lewes; I made sure that it was. I live in a block of flats in the Westminster city council area, and I do not know whether it is metered or not. I have only just moved in and I have not yet had a bill.

Kevin Brennan: May I check a further point with the hon. Gentleman? As I understand it, he proposes that the charges should rise according to the volume of water used. Why should a bath for the fourth child in a family of four cost more than a bath for an only child in a family?

Norman Baker: I understand that important point; I referred to the vulnerable groups regulations, which
 should protect such people. I do not want a system that discourages the essential use of water in any way. Any system that introduces metering must deal with that problem, as the present regulations do not protect people. We discussed in earlier sittings the percentage of household income that is spent on water bills, which is way above the 3 per cent. guideline given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
 The vulnerable groups regulations, if they are properly drafted, in conjunction with the rising tariffs, should protect people who may question whether the fourth child can have a bath. If they can afford it, they may wish to use water to bathe the fourth child, while someone else may wish to water their garden or to wash their car using a hosepipe. 
 It is important to charge by volume, but also to have protection for essential use in the circumstances that I have described. That is what the new clause tries to achieve. 
 I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the new clause, although he will probably not accept it. However, the Government must be honest about water metering; it is not sufficient to leave it to metering by stealth, which does not provide the safeguards that the new clause would introduce.

Elliot Morley: I will deal with stealth metering in a moment, but I must first deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster. This is more technical and he is asking to use the term ''household premises'' as defined by the competition provisions in schedule 4. There is a problem with that, because that definition, which can be elaborated on in regulations, was created for use under the proposed competition regulations. It is not a definition that we wish automatically to apply to metering, and if any changes made to the definition of household premises automatically affected metering, it would restrict the ability to fine tune the competition provisions.
 There are fundamental differences between metering and competition and we would not wish to replicate some areas here. That is why I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's definition is suitable. I am not aware of any problem with the current definitions; they were introduced in the Water Industry Act 1999 and have been in operation for three years without any great difficulty. I do not see the case for the amendment. 
 I do not agree with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. My disagreement is more with the philosophy of it, than with the new clause itself. I shall explain why. The Government are clear about our objectives: we believe that, in the long term, the most appropriate way of charging for water is metering. We have said that on a number of occasions. We have a difference with the hon. Gentleman because he accuses the Government of metering by stealth. 
 We are metering by choice; we are giving people the choice of moving on to a water meter. It is true that, over time, more and more people have done that. All new houses must have water meters; once one is put in, 
 the regulations say that it has to stay in. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. There is already provision for companies to apply for compulsory metering if they so choose. That is in water-stressed areas, and if the company wants to make the case that there is a problem with water resources in its area, it can come to DEFRA and make an application for compulsory metering. So far, none has done so. We would expect any company to address the points made about matters such as leakages, before it asks for compulsory metering, but the provision is there.

Norman Baker: I assure the Minister that I know that the provision is there. I have had discussions with the water companies about it. Their view—I am obviously putting their case, which they wish to have communicated, rather than the Minister's interpretation of it—is that the hurdles that they would have to overcome to qualify for that are so high that it is difficult, and not sensible, for them to invest a huge amount of time in overcoming them. That is their argument; the Minister may not accept it, but that is what they told me.

Elliot Morley: I am not entirely convinced by that argument. If the water companies think that the hurdles are too high, they are welcome to address that through Ofwat and directly to DEFRA, as they do in our discussions. The provision is there, should it be necessary, and should there be an issue of real water shortages. Water metering is a complicated issue; that emerged from our discussion, and I am glad that we have had it. It is quite an important issue and there is no harm in addressing the pros and cons of it.
 I can claim to have experience of both sides of the argument because I live in the Anglian region. I think that Anglian was the only company that started with compulsory water metering. I remember the horrendous difficulties that it ran into with that programme. It was paying for the meters that were being installed; it is worth bearing it in mind, when we talk about giving people choice, that meter installation is free. That is quite a powerful inducement for people to move over to it. There were enormous problems with Anglian and that is why I would be reluctant to accept the date that the hon. Gentleman cites in his new clause. There are terrific technical problems in many parts of the country in installing meters. We have heard about difficulties with blocks of flats. In my constituency, older blocks of terraced houses use one water supply, and attaching a meter to that is horrendously problematic. 
 My own home in north Lincolnshire—I must quickly say that I am metered in London—is an 18th-century manor house that has been socially divided into two houses. I live, in a socially responsible way, in one half of that building. There is only one water supply for the whole building, and it runs through my side of the house. Trying to install two meters is incredibly difficult. I know that because Anglian Water came round to fit my compulsory meter and, despite spending half a day under the sink in my kitchen, could not work out how to do it for the two 
 separate houses without enormous costs and problems. We have to be careful when setting dates for overcoming technical problems. 
 Although I believe that metering is the way forward—I make it clear that the Government believe that metering is the long-term future—I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the effect on demand is more complex than he thinks. There have been several studies on that, and the water companies and Ofwat currently assume that metering would bring a 5 per cent. saving in water use; not bad, but not huge either. However, in some areas this summer, metered customers used more water proportionally than unmetered customers. The reasons for that are not clear and more analysis is needed, but it is not necessarily the case, as the hon. Gentleman believes, that metering is the new nirvana and will solve all the problems. Meters may be part of the solution for water management, and we would not rule them out. 
 I also want to clarify that there is no cross-subsidy between metered and unmetered supply. Ofwat is responsible for setting prices and tries to ensure that there is no subsidy. If there were any implications, they would be for the unmetered supply because the biggest water users would move on to meters. It is also more likely that those who pay the highest rateable value would move over to meters so, as the overall income changes, there are implications for the charges of those with an unmeasured supply. Ofwat is responsible for examining that, and it sets prices, taking those factors into account. However, I do not want to give the impression that metered customers are subsidising unmetered customers, because that is not true; we would have strong words to say if it were.

Norman Baker: The Minister said that there is no cross-subsidy, but does he accept that if somebody on an unmeasured supply changes to a metered supply in the belief, usually correct, that they will save money, the overall income stream to the water company will diminish? That affects the resources available to the water company for future investment and, if Ofwat is approached and told, ''We want an increase of X per cent,'' the figures on its balance sheet will probably justify that. There is an implication for unmeasured customers from the reduction in income from measured customers.

Elliot Morley: That is basically what I was saying, but the implication is for the unmeasured customers. If the base declines, Ofwat will have to decide on the charging regime to be applied to unmeasured as opposed to metered customers. However, I want to make it clear that there is no subsidy from unmetered to metered customers.

Kevin Brennan: Is not the implication of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lewes that the introduction of compulsory metering will lead to a massive and sudden fall in income to water companies? That will lead to much lower investment and bigger problems with leakages.

Elliot Morley: That again would be an implication of a fast move to metering, which would affect water companies, consumers and vulnerable groups. We would prefer an orderly and phased move towards the
 changes, to minimise dramatic impact on consumers and people. I do not believe that the new clause would achieve that.
 I want to say a word about vulnerable groups. Some of my hon. Friends were concerned, and I can tell them that vulnerable group regulations are under review. They are designed to assist metered customers who need to use large volumes of water for essential purposes. The results of the review and consultation will be issued by the end of this year. That is an aside to say that we are sensitive to the needs of vulnerable groups in relation to water meters and we are trying to address them. 
 It would be to many people's advantage to move to metering at the moment. As prices and regimes change, I suspect that more and more people will find it in their interests to do that and we will see continued progress as more people make the move. We are moving towards maximising the number of people on water meters, bearing in mind the technical problems, which will not be easy to resolve. That is part of an overall approach to water management, which also includes tackling leaks, considering building regulations and the design of new houses, and minimising water use. We must consider a range of issues in ensuring that we have good water management, and leakages is just one of them. 
 I return to the point that if there are shortages in a water-stressed area, companies can apply for compulsory metering. They can also already insist on compulsory metering for large water users. In my area, for example, it is compulsory for people with swimming pools and, I think, sprinklers to have a meter. Such measures can be applied, which shows that far from introducing meters by stealth, we are giving people the choice. We are working in a way that allows transitions without huge distortions for either the companies or consumers. We recognise that there are sensitivities in terms of what people want to do and that effective measures are needed for vulnerable groups. We already have some measures in place and are trying to improve them further. 
 The Government approach is the right one. We are aiming for the same end point as the hon. Member for Lewes, but it is a question of being practical and proportionate and of recognising the difficulties in applying large-scale metering throughout the country. We have recognised those problems, and our balance is just about right. We are open for discussions about different charging mechanisms and other approaches. As I have mentioned several times, we are receptive to new ideas and approaches. The hon. Gentleman has the best intentions and motivations, but his new clause would not work in the interests of either water companies or consumers.

Sue Doughty: Before we leave the new clause, I should like to make a few points. Much of the Bill is about reducing the amount of water that we abstract, using water wisely and putting in place measures to do that in increasingly difficult climatic times. The Minister rightly pointed out that several measures in the Bill are designed to do that, and we know that some water companies have been effective in reducing their leakages to the level of diminishing
 returns. Other companies such as Thames Water, which was mentioned this morning, still have a way to go, and we want to see improvement from them. However, water companies in many parts of the country have responded to the challenge.
 The Minister says that people can opt for a meter, but many people will not do so if, for example, they are unsure about the state of the pipes in their garden, for which they are responsible. The problem is that if there is a break in the pipe before it gets to the meter, where it is that person's responsibility, they may get a high bill. Constituents who have not been able to reach a proper accommodation with the water company come to me worrying about what might happen in such circumstances. 
 I appreciate that there is no great demand for metering in Wales. There is an awful lot of water there, so they would say that. I know of one other part of the country where metering would not be popular, for the same reason—there is no water shortage in that part of the country. The water companies in such areas would understandably not want to go for it. 
 One wonders whether the Welsh would be so keen for water not to be metered if there was a water shortage in another part of the country—perhaps in England—to which water was being shipped from a new reservoir in Wales.

Simon Thomas: Perhaps I might suggest that we put one big meter on it.

Sue Doughty: Well, effectively, that happens in practice. We look at the amount of water that is going through.
 It is understandable that the Minister dwelled at length on the problems on shared supply pipes and where it is practical to install a meter. The new clause deals with that by excluding such provisions under proposed new subsection (2A) of the relevant section of the 1991 Act and allowing for separate arrangements. 
 It is well known and understood that there are some groups of properties where it is impossible to divide fairly the amount of water going through each component part. However, one could aggregate all those properties and divide the amount of water going into them proportionately and fairly. That would be a matter for consultation. We do not dictate how that should happen. The proposal allows for consultation before the Bill is enacted. It does not have to go down to the level of detail, because we recognise that such a thing would not just be included as a finished measure before due consultation of the implications was carried out. 
 There are questions about whether if everybody were metered, there would be less investment. However, if there were less investment, that would presumably be because there had been a reduction in the amount of water used. I hope that we would, for example, avoid a new reservoir in south Oxfordshire in the Thames Water region. That is always on the cards, despite what was said about leakage. We are using more water; we wash and shower more often and we 
 wash our clothes more often. There are all sorts of considerations to bear in mind, but eventually the water must be paid for. We are still keen on taking a closer look at metering. 
 Hon. Members have said that there are high hurdles to be overcome before we decide on compulsory metering. However, we need to consider the matter, not only in the interests of social justice, with the provisos that we have discussed, but because many of the measures that we are considering may not be enough to guarantee the supply of water in an increasing number of households, which we need to supply, and given the climatic stress that we are facing.

Bill Wiggin: What an enjoyable afternoon I have had listening to the debate, thinking of the Minister reclining in his 18th-century manor house, particularly with the water authority burrowing under his kitchen sink.
 I remember asking the hon. Member for Lewes earlier if it was official Liberal Democrat policy for there to be compulsory metering. If that is so—and I hope that it is—he has demonstrated in the new clause that he really believes in it. I do not mind if he distributes a ''Focus'' leaflet on such an issue around my constituency. I believe that the public deserve the choice of whether to have a free meter, should they want one, or to maintain the status quo by continuing with the rateable value. That is probably the right and reasonable way to proceed. Of course, we will end up with a higher proportion of metered houses in the long run. 
 I was grateful to the Minister for dealing with my rather technical amendment, the purpose of which is to define property and household premises, because in the next amendment we will come on to the difficulty with blocks of flats. However, I do not want to move on to that debate at this early stage. We shall later have a debate on fluoridation when we will talk about compulsory mass medication. I suspect that the more liberal-minded among us will be against that. And how could we possibly be in favour of compulsory water meters?

Norman Baker: I shall be quick, as there are many new clauses to debate.
 First, I want to pick up three of four points that the Minister made. He mentioned the word ''choice''. There is choice in some respects, but not in others. There is choice if a person happens to be in a unmetered premises and wants to change to a meter, but there the choice ends. There is no choice if a person is in a metered property and wants to go back to being unmetered. There is no choice if a person buys a new house and it has a meter. The choice is therefore illusory, or at least there is a choice for some but not others. That contributes to the hotchpotch that I referred to during in my introduction. 
 Secondly, the Minister does not like the date 2018. As I said, I talked to the water companies; they said that a minimum of 10 years was required, and we have given them 15, so that is not an unreasonable period. 
 Thirdly, as the Minister said, the new clause is not nirvana. It could be one measure among many. I fully accept that, and I am prepared to sign up to Ofwat's 5 per cent. figure that the Minister quoted. The figure of 5 per cent. is significant and should not be thrown away; it is worth having. I have offered part of, but not the whole solution. 
 I shall turn to the idea that it is bad to save water because bills will go up. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said from a sedentary position, the argument seems to be for subsidising inefficiency, which we should not be doing. We would obviate the need for further infrastructure improvements, thereby keeping the cost of the water industry down—my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made that point. 
 We have had a useful discussion. The Liberal Democrats reserve the right to press new clauses to the vote later in the process. I do not pretend that metering is without problems—it is not. I hope that it appears in the introduction to the report accurately rather than mischievously. It is not honest of the Government to duck the issue and wait for sources outside the Government to sort it out over a long period. Labour Members generally want to protect vulnerable groups, but those people will suffer more unless the Government use a big bang approach.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's response. At this stage, it would be prudent to withdraw my amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in
schedule 7, page 194, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(8) In Schedule 4A— 
 (a) for paragraph 1(2)(a) there is substituted— 
 ''(a) a private dwelling-house constituting the whole or any part of household premises,'' 
 (b) at the end of paragraph 1 there is added— 
 ''(3) In this paragraph, ''household premises'' shall have the same meaning as in section 17C of this Act.''.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 4—Protection from disconnection for specified households in mixed use premises— 
No. NC4, to move the following Clause— 
 'In Schedule 4A to WIA there is inserted— 
 ''1A(1) Premises which include any dwelling which is occupied by a person as his only or principal home and whose household normally includes— 
 (a) an individual who is disabled or chronically sick; 
 (b) an individual of pensionable age; or 
 (c) a child under the age of five. 
 (2) In this paragraph, ''dwelling'' has the meaning given by paragraph 1(2)''.'.

Bill Wiggin: The amendment deals with a very real problem that water companies face: people living in flats. At the moment, a large number of the debts that water companies are owed are due to people who live in a flat that is part of a larger building and is probably temporary accommodation for them, but the water company is not aware of that.
 Through the amendment, we want to ensure that the water companies can count dwellings within the whole or any part of a premises. I also draw the Minister's attention to the problem of people living above pubs or shops; they are living in homes that currently do not count as households because they are above commercial premises. Water companies have had difficulty with debt because of that. 
 The water companies can cut off a commercial property, but they cannot cut off a block of flats. In an ideal world, the water bills would be either metered or part of the rent that someone living in a block of flats might pay. That way, the bad debts accumulating would slow. That is what we want to achieve through amendment No. 102 and new clause 4, which states: 
''any dwelling which is occupied by a person as his only or principal home and whose household normally includes—''
 and groups of vulnerable people are then listed. I hope that the Minister takes the amendments on board, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

Elliot Morley: The amendment proposes that the definition of ''private dwelling house'', for the purpose of defining premises that are not to be disconnected for non-payment of water charges, be replaced with the planned definition for ''household premises'' in schedule 4.
 That is a bit of a re-run of something that we have addressed. As I mentioned, the definition of ''household premises'' under schedule 4, which will be elaborated on in secondary legislation, is created for use in the proposed competition regime. We would not wish to apply it to disconnection any more than we would to metering, because there are many differences between disconnection and competition. If we wished to improve or adjust the definitions of premises for the purposes of disconnection we would draft afresh. 
 New clause 4 proposes to add to the list of premises exempt from disconnection for non-payment of bills, but it is unclear what the effect of that addition would be. The existing provision, which was introduced in 1999, offers protection against disconnection to a detailed list of types of premises that extends over more than two pages of the schedule—I think that the hon. Gentleman made that point.. 
 The existing list starts by protecting from disconnection any dwelling that is occupied by a person as their only or principal home. It is made clear that a private dwelling house may be a building or part of a building. This list was the most extensively debated part of the Bill that became the 1999 Act, and the Government accepted many changes to the schedule in response to debates in the House at the time. I mention that to emphasise that the premises to be protected were deliberate policy choices. 
 One reading of this new clause is that it simply seeks to protect those dwellings that are occupied by the disabled, the sick, pensioners or children under the age of five. That is entirely laudable; they are vulnerable groups. However, an amendment is not necessary to achieve that. If all dwellings occupied as a principal home are protected from disconnection, any such dwelling occupied by the vulnerable individuals listed in the amendment is automatically protected. 
 On another reading, it might be thought that the amendment has a slightly different target. Some individuals do not live in dwellings occupied as a home, but in premises that are primarily commercial—I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to that. If people live in a self-contained flat with its own water supply, they are protected from disconnection, like any other person is. 
 There can, however, be mixed-use premises in which the commercial supply is not separated from the supply for the individual. Examples of that include some public houses and caretakers' accommodation at a factory or on top of a large office block. Such a situation might occur where the accommodation is tied in that way, and the policy decision taken in 1999, which is still our policy today, is that it is appropriate to allow the disconnection of commercial premises. The problem is that it becomes difficult to distinguish private from commercial premises in those limited circumstances. 
 Where commercial premises include some elements that are residential, if those elements amount to a part of a building that is a private dwelling house, that, too, is protected, but the view was taken in 1999 that if those commercial premises are not a private dwelling house, disconnection should still be possible. However, commercial or industrial premises, which might be of any size, should not be sheltered against disconnection simply because they include a caretaker somewhere on site. [Interruption.]

Bill O'Brien: Order. I call upon hon. Members to let the Minister make his contribution.

Elliot Morley: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.
 The problem is that there is a potential loophole. There could be a very large building, even a factory, which contained a flat, and the company could refuse to pay the bill, and if the amendment was agreed to, the water could not be turned off, although I do not think that that is its intention. 
 Although I appreciate that there are some difficult cases, I suspect that they are a minority and that they are generally dealt with if they involve a principal home that has a separate water supply.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister because he has understood the argument beautifully. What is worrying me is that he is not proposing to do anything about the problem. I accept that the loophole is a difficulty, but he will also accept that a loophole already exists and that people who live above a pub, or are caretakers, can be cut off. Obviously, if their home contains someone in a vulnerable group, they too will be cut off. The new clause seeks to close that loophole. I accept that it might not be perfect, but I would have hoped that the Minister would want to take the point on board and act constructively on it. What does he propose to do?

Elliot Morley: The problem is that the amendment does not close a loophole; it opens one. It would give commercial premises the opportunity not to pay their water bills and take away the power of the water companies to do anything about it. I am not altogether
 sure that there is a major problem with vulnerable groups, bearing in mind the definitions relating to principal homes, which I have made clear. I am happy to have discussions with my officials to see whether they have identified a particular problem. If that is the case, perhaps we should turn our minds to it, but I do not think that we have received many representations to say that this is a big problem.

Bill Wiggin: Perhaps the Minister would keep a watching brief on that situation, but I do not expect that there are great numbers involved. I suspect that he is right, but there is a loophole at the moment. I accept that a change would open another one, so we are in a difficult situation. A watching brief is probably the best way to deal with that. If he is prepared to do that, I shall not press the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill O'Brien: We now come to a group of Government amendments attached to schedule 7.

Bill Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien. The selection list that we were given grouped them differently. I am curious about why we keep returning to the Government amendments in this manner. It is difficult to follow, and therefore difficult for us to scrutinise effectively.

Bill O'Brien: I am taking them in this order because of the procedure that we are going through. We are on schedule 7 and dealing with that part of the schedule that the amendments affect. The amendments that I am referring to are Nos. 308–313, 271, 314, 315 and 272. They are the group arising out of the block that we discussed earlier.
 Amendments made:— No. 308, in 
schedule 7, page 194, line 37, leave out from 'Director' to 'there' in line 38 and insert 
 'General of Water Services under section 29(6)''.'.
 No. 309, in 
schedule 7, page 194, line 39, leave out 'above or'.
 No. 310, in 
schedule 7, page 195, line 8, after '1991)', insert '; or'.
 No. 311, in 
schedule 7, page 195, line 16, at end insert— 
 '( ) The Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 is amended as follows. 
 ( ) In Schedule 1 (amendment of enactments), paragraphs 10, 28(a) and 29(a) are omitted.'.
 No. 312, in 
schedule 7, page 195, line 17, leave out from 'Schedule 2' to '(transitional' in line 18.
 No. 313, in 
schedule 7, page 195, line 28, leave out from 'paragraph' to 'the' in line 29 and insert '(o) there is inserted— 
 ''(p)'. 
 No. 271, in 
schedule 7, page 195, line 36, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Schedule 10 (regulators), the following are omitted— 
 (a) paragraph 5(3), 
 (b) paragraph 13(2) and (3).'.
 No. 314, in 
schedule 7, page 196, line 7, leave out '''(gga)' and insert '''(gi)'.
 No. 315, in 
schedule 7, page 196, line 20, leave out from 'paragraph' to 'the' in line 21 and insert '(ra) there is inserted— 
 ''(rb)'.
 No. 272, in 
schedule 7, page 197, line 5, at end insert— 
 'Reservoirs Act 1975 (c.23) 
 In Schedule 1 to the Reservoirs Act 1975 (index of general definitions), the entry for ''Local authority'' is omitted.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 132, in
schedule 7, page 197, line 8, leave out 'for' and insert 'after'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 133, in 
schedule 7, page 197, line 9, leave out 'substituted' and insert 'inserted'.
 Amendment No. 134, in 
schedule 7, page 197, line 10, leave out 'for' and insert 'after'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
schedule 7, page 197, line 11, leave out 'substituted' and insert 'inserted'.

Bill Wiggin: This is a tremendous series of amendments, which will appeal to the Minister's sense of fair play, his passion for transparency and everything else that is good about him. The amendment is monumental, because it seeks to change the words so that ''centigrade'' and ''Fahrenheit'' appear in the Bill. That is hardly an unpleasant experience to have to go through. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that although metric is very acceptable, there is no need to delete the old Fahrenheit readings.
 To leave out ''for'' and insert ''after'' is hardly the most testing of amendments.

George Osborne: Has my hon. Friend made any estimates of the temperature in centigrade or Fahrenheit of this Room?

Bill Wiggin: As I said earlier, this is home from home for me. When I get home this evening, I expect my house to be as cold as it is in here because my boiler is broken. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the fact that although some of us would be very comfortable with the temperature in this Room being measured in centigrade, some older Members might be happier if it were in Fahrenheit. We have an opportunity here to include both in the Bill. That is inclusive, transparent and in every way appealing.

Elliot Morley: Well, we are being invited to go back to the future in the amendment, but time has moved on. In 1965, the Government announced to Parliament their intention for metric units to become the primary system of measurement in the United Kingdom. I know that it takes Conservative Members a bit of time to get their minds round new things, but 1965 was long enough ago to allow plenty of time to adjust to the
 metric system. It has been the primary system of measurement in schools since 1974. I must confess that I cannot relate to Fahrenheit; I think in centigrade. I can predict the temperature of this Room in centigrade. It is about 14 to 15° C, which is not particularly warm. I have no idea what the temperature is in Fahrenheit.

Candy Atherton: It is colder by the window.

Elliot Morley: That is because of the movement of the air.
 The hon. Member for Leominster had the teeniest bit of an argument in asking for both measurements. We often see measurements in both Fahrenheit and centigrade on the news and in weather forecasts, but there are two reasons why the Bill refers only to centigrade and why it would not be appropriate to have both. 
 First, the provisions contain criminal sanctions relating to temperatures. The temperatures are specified in centigrade to prevent people from putting hot liquids down drains, which can cause all sorts of problems. That is what this is about. It is a fundamental principle that there should be a single clear and unambiguous test for criminal liability. The difficulty is that the figures on the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales are not precisely the same. By referring to Fahrenheit, the amendments would have the unintended consequence of creating two different tests for criminal liability. Clearly, that is not acceptable, because there would always be someone who seized on whether it was Fahrenheit or centigrade and what exactly the temperature was. 
 The second reason is more practical than technical. It is important that there is no risk of confusion in matters of public health and safety. It is better to have one clear measure than two measures with the risk that the wrong figure may be used. It is time that some Conservative Members came into the modern world.

Bill Wiggin: I came into the world in 1966, after that legislation.

Elliot Morley: There we are; it should be ingrained upon the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin: Some things are ingrained upon me; clarity, freedom of choice and the fact that more information is better than less. The Minister says that the purpose of the provision is to prevent people from pouring hot liquid down drains. Perhaps he would like to tell us which is hotter; the temperature in Fahrenheit or in Celsius.

Norman Baker: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but does he share my surprise that the Minister is not expanding choice by saying that there will be a gradual change from Fahrenheit to centigrade? That could evolve over time, and people could choose to follow the system, rather than having measures forced on them in this way.

Bill Wiggin: I am as astonished as the hon. Gentleman. This is a light-hearted series of amendments, but there is quite an important point behind it, which is that if we are trying to prevent people from doing something wrong, we should not
 deny them a measurement. Some people will understand centigrade; some would be happier dealing with Fahrenheit.

Robert Key: It is Celsius. Where did my hon. Friend go to school?

Bill Wiggin: I was at school in 1974, when the system was being brought in.

Bill O'Brien: Order. I ask hon. Members to return to the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Brien. I was just trying to explain that my upbringing was deeply confusing, because we were taught both metres and miles.

Robert Key: To clear up the confusion, could my hon. Friend say where he went to school?

Bill O'Brien: There is no confusion. As far as I am concerned, we are sticking to the amendment. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to stick to the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: I will. I accept the point that the Minister made about criminality. If there is a difference between the two temperatures, I should be grateful if he told us whether he is moving towards hotter or colder. If our aim is the worthy one of trying to stop people pouring hot liquids down drains, we should make it as widely known as possible. I shall not veer for one second away from the amendment, but I should like the Minister to reply.

Elliot Morley: That is precisely the point that I made. As this is a regulation, and has criminal sanctions, it is important that people should be clear about it. It is also important that we have a temperature of which people are aware, and that that temperature is specified according to the Celsius system, because that is the legal system in the UK.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point that the Minister makes. However, the Minister, in converting, has rounded down in one case and up in another, although the circumstances are similar. I am not sure why that is so. Could he remind us why he has rounded in different directions?

Elliot Morley: I always thought that I was a rounded sort of person. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. The Bill will have only one temperature range—the Celsius range—but the amendment would change that. I am saying that there is potential confusion in doing that.

Andrew Lansley: My point is that the Minister has rounded down in the case of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and has rounded up in the case of subsection (5).

Elliot Morley: It is simply rounded to the nearest number; that is the only reason.

Bill Wiggin: I still have not had an answer from the Minister. Are things getting hotter or colder—[Interruption.] We appear to have exhausted this one. It is a shame, because there is an inconsistency, but we have done our duty in pointing it out.

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not entirely exhausted the point, because the system currently in place is, presumably, understood by
 everyone, and is applied throughout the industry. Someone will have to write round and tell everyone about the change, at some cost. The unnecessary change has imposed extra costs on the taxpayer.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is right. We in the Opposition have tried to point out the inadequacy, by means of our amendment. However, I do not think that the Government are listening, and there is not much more that we can do about it at this stage. There are some important matters to discuss before the knife falls, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 273, in 
schedule 7, page 197, line 20, at end insert— 
 'Environment Act 1995 (c.25) 
 In section 101 of the Environment Act 1995 (grants in connection with drainage works), subsection (1) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
 Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 9 - Repeals

Amendments made: No. 274, in 
schedule 9, page 223, line 30, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 1, the entry for ''Local authority''.'.
 No. 316, in 
schedule 9, page 223, line 41, column 2, at end insert— 
 ''In Schedule 3, paragraphs 6 and 7. 
 'In Schedule 4, paragraph 6. 
 'In Schedule 25, paragraphs 68(2)(a) and 76(a).'.
 No. 317, in 
schedule 9, page 224, line 37, at end insert— 
 'Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991 (c.60) 
 In Schedule 1, paragraphs 10, 28(a) and 29(a).'. 
 No. 275, in 
schedule 9, page 224, line 39, column 2, at beginning insert— 
 'Section 101(1).'.
 No. 318, in 
schedule 9, page 224, line 42, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 22, paragraph 181.'.
 No. 276, in 
schedule 9, page 224, line 43, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 10, paragraphs 5(3) and 13(2) and (3).'. 
 —[Mr. Morley.]
 Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 103 - Specific transitional and transitory provisions

Amendment made: No. 263, in 
clause 103, page 129, line 11, leave out second '(6)' and insert '(5)'.—[Mr. Morley.] 
 Clause 103, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 104 and 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 - Interpretation, commencement, short title, and extent

Amendment proposed: No. 264, in 
clause 106, page 132, line 3, at end insert— 
 '( ) section 87(3).'.—[Mr. Morley.]

Bill Wiggin: What exactly does the wording of the amendment mean?

Elliot Morley: It is not our policy intention to seek to extend to Scotland the environmental powers that clause 87, and schedules 5 and 6, will provide to the Coal Authority. Only by introducing this amendment, which is purely technical, can we ensure that the authority's founding legislation—the Coal Industry Act 1994—will successfully limit the extent of the powers to England and Wales only.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 171, in 
clause 106, page 132, line 6, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Morley.]

Bill Wiggin: Subsection (8) states:
''Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge.''
 What exactly is the Minister up to in removing that?

Elliot Morley: Nothing sinister is the answer to that. The amendment covers an interesting point that I learned only in preparing for the Bill. The Bill started in the other place, and there are restrictions on what the House of Lords can do on the levying of taxes and charges. When the Bill was originally drafted, that clause was consistent with the powers of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Now that the Bill is in the House of Commons and being scrutinised in Committee, we have the power to add measures of charges and aspects relating to financial matters. This is a procedural amendment to remove what is known as a privilege amendment—the privilege being ours—which is added by the Lords to every Bill originating there. That is an interesting procedural lesson that I learned only recently.

Bill Wiggin: It certainly is.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 16 - Duty to encourage water conservation

'(1) The relevant authority must, where appropriate, take steps to encourage the conservation of water. 
 (2) The relevant authority is— 
 (a) the Secretary of State, in relation to England, 
 (b) the Assembly, in relation to Wales. 
 (3) After the period of three years beginning with the date on which this section comes into force, and after each succeeding period of three years, the Secretary of State must prepare a report about the steps taken by him under this section, and about any such steps which he proposes to take. 
 (4) The Assembly may make an order requiring the preparation by it of corresponding reports, and such an order may make provision about when, or in relation to what periods, they are to be prepared. 
 (5) Each such report must— 
 (a) if prepared by the Secretary of State, be laid before Parliament, 
 (b) if prepared by the Assembly, be laid before, and published by, the Assembly.'.—[Mr. Morley.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11 - Liability of owners for charges

'(1) In section 144 of the WIA (relating to the liability of occupiers for charges), in subsection (1), after ''of this section'', there is inserted ''and of section 144AA below''. 
 (2) After section 144 of the WIA there is inserted— 
 ''144AA Liability of owners etc. for charges in prescribed cases 
 (1) In respect of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of this section, section 144 above shall take effect as if for the references throughout that section to the occupier or the occupation of premises there were substituted references to the owner or ownership of such premises. 
 (2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) above may also modify or extend the application of that subsection in one or more of the following respects by providing that— 
 (a) in relation to any specified types of premises within the class of premises prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above, for the references to the owners and ownership of such specified premises, there shall be substituted references to such other categories of persons and to such rights as may be prescribed by the regulations; 
 (b) specified classes of persons who are— 
 (i) owners of classes of premises prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above, or 
 (ii) within those categories of persons prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, 
 shall be excluded from the application of the regulations; 
 (c) the owner or occupier of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above which are provided with any service by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions shall, when requested in writing to do so by the undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the ownership or occupation of those premises; 
 (d) such statutory undertakers or public bodies as may be prescribed shall, when requested in writing to do so by a relevant undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the current or former ownership or occupation of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above which are or have been provided with any service by the undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions.''.'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 12—Liability of owners for charges (No. 2)— 
'(1) In section 144 of the WIA (relating to the liability of occupiers for charges), in subsection (1), after ''Subject to'' insert ''section 144AA below and''. 
 (2) After section 144 of the WIA insert— 
 ''144AA Liability of owners for charges 
 (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where— 
 (a) any premises are occupied by any person by virtue of any tenancy, licence, contract, enactment or implication of law for any period or term of less than one year, and 
 (b) those premises are provided with any services by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions, 
 the undertaker may provide in any charges scheme which it makes under section 143 above for the owner of those premises (instead of the occupier) to be liable for the payment of the charges for the provision of those services and to be treated for the purposes of section 144 above as if he were the occupier of those premises. 
 (2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any owner which is a local authority, Government agency or publicly funded body which is prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this subsection. 
 (3) The owner or occupier of any premises which are provided with any services by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions shall, when requested in writing to do so by the undertaker, provide the undertaker with all such information as the undertaker may reasonably require for determining whether this section applied to those premises. 
 (4) Subsection (3) shall be enforceable by the County Court. 
 (5) In this section, 'premises' shall include 'mobile home' as defined by section 9 of the Mobile Homes Act 1975.''.'.
 New clause 15—Liability of owners, etc., to provide information— 
After section 144 of the W1A there is inserted— 
 ''144AA. Liability of owners etc to provide information 
 (1) The owner or occupier of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of this section which are provided with any service by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions shall, when requested in writing to do so by the undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the ownership or occupation of those premises. 
 (2) Such statutory undertakers or public bodies as may be prescribed shall, when requested in writing to do so by a relevant undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the current or former ownership or occupation of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of this section which are or have been provided with any service by the undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions. 
 (3) Information which is required to be provided under either subsection (1) or (2) above shall be provided in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. 
 (4) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provisions for the purposes of subsection (1) to (3) above.''.'.

Bill Wiggin: New clauses 11 and 12 are a fairly technical pair of amendments and seek to clarify the role of the owner. New clause 11 relates to the liability of owners for charges in prescribed cases. It is a long and complicated group of measures with similar aims. We would like to insert the wording of the new clause into section 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which relates to the liability of occupiers for charges, and proposed new subsection (2)(d) seeks to clarify that liability.

Elliot Morley: New clauses 11 and 12 propose that owners, rather than occupiers, can be made responsible for water and sewerage charges. I understand the reasoning behind them, particularly if people skip off without paying their bills. However, it would have the effect of leaving the owner liable for
 the bill. That is a bit on the hard side. It would mean that the occupier would have far less reason to limit water use if he knew that he could simply disappear and leave the owner with all the debts.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has put his finger on the problem. The reason that this approach is popular with the water companies is that there is a problem with multiple occupancy, particularly in blocks of flats, where people jump ship just as the Minister described. One way of dealing with that in an unmetered block is to allow the water charges to be part of the rent. That does not seem to be the way that people do things at the moment, but it would get over the problem. The purpose here is to try to find a way to stop the continuing bad debts that are mounting up in the water industry and to enable a landlord rather than an occupier to be pursued. That would put the pressure on the landlord to include the water bill in the rent, and the rest of us, who do pay our water bills, would no longer have to pay for that bad debt.

Elliot Morley: The new clause might have that effect, but if one accepts the argument for water, why not apply it to other utility bills? Why not put the liability for everything, including satellite TV, on to the owner rather than the occupier? I understand the reasoning behind the new clause. Indeed we have discussed the problem of deliberate non-payment before, but I am not sure that this is the best way to deal with it. It would greatly alter the balance against the owner.
 New clause 15 also proposes that property owners and occupiers be required to give water companies information concerning the ownership or occupation of the premises. It would also require statutory undertakers and prescribed statutory bodies to provide such information. However, it does not propose that owners take any responsibility for their tenants' bills—just for information on their tenants. I appreciate that there are some real issues here. Companies often have to keep track of customers who live in shared occupancy households or who rent on short leases, but I can see a few problems with this. 
 Placing such a burden on the landlord would seem to me to be asking landlords to take responsibility for something that is not their duty, and it would, in any case, go against the principles of data protection. It is not for landlords to take such a role in facilitating payment to utility companies, and I would be uncomfortable with such a move, not least because one is back to the same problem that if one applies it to water, there are other services to which it could equally be applied. I understand what the hon. Member for Lewes is trying to do and I am not unsympathetic to his approach, but I am not convinced that this would work. It throws out the balance between the landlord and the tenant.

Sue Doughty: I should like to talk about new clause 15 because there are further points that need to be made. We have talked about the high amount of water debt in houses in multiple occupation. In this case we are talking about the ''won't pays'', rather than the ''can't pays''. We are talking about people who share houses transiently; they may be young, upwardly
 mobile professionals who are not in long-term poverty. That is a problem: multiple occupancy dwellings account for a disproportionate share of the burden of debt.
 Water undertakers need a clearer definition of what an occupier is, because it is difficult to collect debt from people who move in and then move out. For satellite TV a bank account is required and an agreement signed, but it is difficult for water companies to identify who was in a house at any one time and who was responsible for the debt. Water UK has been considering this for some time because, as we would all agree, it is unreasonable that those who pay their water bills are in effect subsidising those who choose not to. It is far more desirable that those who incur the debt, pay it. Water UK sought legal opinion on the matter and was advised by Queen's Counsel that a definition of the term ''occupier'' in cases of multiple occupation could be secured only by further legislation. Water UK cannot just go to the landlord and ask who the occupier was. 
 The new clause would require the owner or the occupier of a class of dwelling to be prescribed by regulation and, typically with houses in multiple occupation, the owner would have to provide the statutory undertaker—the water company—with information concerning the ownership and the occupation of the dwellings. The measure does not necessarily say that the landlord should pay the debt—not at all—but it would allow the undertaker to discover who was living in a property when the debt was incurred. 
 The new clause would allow various statutory bodies, such as local authorities, to give information concerning the current or former owner of multiple occupation dwellings so that water companies could inquire about the occupancy. That would allow water companies to trace tenants who have moved, leaving an unpaid water bill. On the face of it, that would be entirely reasonable. It is not a prescriptive amendment; the rights of any water companies to obtain such information would need careful consideration, due to implications for privacy and liberty. 
 What might the Government do to consult on the issue so that they could introduce regulations, so helping to bring down the level of water debt among those who choose not to pay, in an area where debt is particularly high? The new clause has the support not only of Water UK—the suppliers—but Water Voice, which represents the consumers, who believe that honest consumers carry the burden of those who choose not to pay their debts.

Bill Wiggin: What the hon. Lady just said is right. This is an important issue. The Government should address bad debts in the water industry and—although I accept that the Minister took that on board—we have not done enough to address the matter. It is the sort of issue to which we may have to return later, so I shall not press the motion to a vote. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I think that we all have to keep our eye on the quantity of bad debt in the water sector. If it continues to rise as it is doing at present, we may have to do more to address it.

Elliot Morley: I repeat that the issue of bad debt is important, particularly for those who could pay but will not. Water Voice and the other consumer organisations are right to raise concerns about that. I am still not altogether convinced by the new clause, which would require landlords to provide information on their tenants, not least because providing water companies with such information is one thing; the companies will still have to track down the customers involved and get the money from them, and that is a different thing.

Norman Baker: Does the Minister accept that the comparison that he drew between water and satellite television is not a fair one? It is possible for someone to move into an HMO and then to move out without the water company ever knowing that he had been there. That is not the case with satellite television, for which an agreement is signed. I understand and share to a degree the Minister's reluctance with regard to the relative powers of landlords and tenants but, if he is not happy with this new clause, what measures will he introduce to ensure that those who pay their bills are not subsidising those who do not?

Elliot Morley: I have mentioned in previous debates that there are measures that water companies can take. There is a disparity in the success of some companies in recovering debts compared with others. It is a matter of how they use the provisions that are available to them. I am happy to discuss with the water companies how we can jointly address the problem and whether there are further steps that need to be taken.
 There are some comparisons to be drawn between water supply and satellite television, although a better comparison would be with gas and electricity supply. If there is to be such a provision in relation to tenants, logically it should apply to a range of services where people may want information for quite valid reasons. 
 The problem with the new clause is that it strays into areas of freedom of information and data protection which have been debated in Parliament, and may well be debated again, but go far wider than the provisions that we can have in the Bill. Although there may be issues that the hon. Member for Guildford wants to raise, and there may be merit in some of her arguments, we are entering the realms of data protection, individual freedoms, rights and checks and balances that go beyond the Bill.

Sue Doughty: I have heard what the Minister said. We all have concerns about privacy and freedom of information, but I still feel very unhappy that we have no remedies to the problem of the level of debt. We will not pursue the matter at this stage, but we may return to it on Report.

Bill Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 20 - Rats in sewers

'After section 95 of WIA there is inserted— 
 ''95A Power to approve Codes of Practice 
 (1) The Secretary of State may by Order approve any code of practice (whether prepared by him or another person) which, in his opinion, gives suitable guidance to sewerage undertakers and local authorities on the performance of functions under this Part of the Act. 
 (2) In particular the Secretary of State may by order approve such Code of Practice (whether prepared by him or another person) which in his opinion gives suitable guidance to sewerage undertakers and local authorities on the control of rats in sewers.''.'.—[Andy King.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andy King: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I shall be extremely brief because the new clause is self-explanatory. It is important that sewerage undertakers and local authorities be given consistent guidance that they must follow to deal with what is becoming a national problem. I understand that there are about 60 million rats, which means that they outnumber the population of the country as a whole. The breeding ground for them will be sewers. I have to be careful because my name is King, and being chair of the all-party sewers and sewerage group, I am known as King Rat. I hope that the Minister will take the purpose of the new clause on board and put in place the necessary guidance to deal with a major problem.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend raises a serious point about rats in sewers, the relevant controls and the guidance given to local government. The Local Government Association and Water UK published a joint protocol in 1999 that set out the arrangements for closer working relationships between the water companies and local authorities in controlling rodent infestations in sewers. That protocol was established and supported by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the then Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That was before DEFRA was in place, but we still think that the protocol has a great deal of merit.
 The protocol's effectiveness is being monitored by the working group on rats in sewers, which is chaired by DEFRA. The protocol has been well publicised in the water industry, and I understand that seven out of 10 of its members responded to a recent survey on rats and said that they were aware of the protocol as it stood. 
 I have, however, been informed that local authorities may not have quite so good a knowledge of the protocol, and that might be the origin of some of the problems that have rightly been identified. The working group recently enlisted the help of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health better to publicise the protocol at working level. Also, DEFRA recently wrote to all local authorities to ensure that their attention was brought to the matter. 
 We have a protocol that is not very different from the statutory code of practice that my hon. Friend is arguing for. The protocol is clearly not fully known by all local authorities, but DEFRA is taking steps to ensure that it is. Let us have the publicity campaign and see whether it makes a difference to the effectiveness of the response of local authorities to rodent control. If it does not, we might return to the 
 matter. I suggest that we keep in touch on the issue. I am happy to share information on our monitoring and how it is being applied nationally, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to keep in touch about the effectiveness of the measure.

Bill Wiggin: The point of the new clause is to deal with rats in sewers. The Minister has been talking about rodent control by local authorities—

Elliot Morley: In sewers.

Bill Wiggin: In sewers. I am particularly concerned because, as the Minister will know, rats carry Weil's disease, which is fatal to humans. The number of rats is on the increase so we should take the new clause seriously. I am a bit nervous when the Minister says that we will see how we get on with local authorities. Perhaps he could be a little more optimistic.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman should not start creating mass panic about Weil's disease, although it is a serious disease. It is carried in rat's urine and, where rats are found, it can enter people's bodies through open cuts. People need to be aware of that and take steps to minimise the risk. However, the protocol is about effective rodent control in sewers. There is no disagreement between what I am saying and what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) is saying when it comes to the importance of the matter and trying to make things work effectively. Perhaps the protocol needs to be publicised a bit more in some areas. We are taking steps to do that through DEFRA, and that is what we want to evaluate.

Robert Key: I do not think that the Minister is taking the matter sufficiently seriously. Across Europe this summer there were many areas in which bathing in traditional public places was made illegal. For example, across France, bathing in rivers, streams and man-made or natural lakes was outlawed because of the spread of Weil's disease. Sewers flow into rivers, lakes and ponds. Is the Minister aware of any discussions that have taken place between his Department or the Department of Health and the French or other European authorities on this important issue? People from this country go on holiday to France and vice versa. We need to take the matter a tad more seriously.

Elliot Morley: I made it clear that the issue is serious and I hope that I have dealt with it seriously. I have not been flippant about it. There is an exchange of information with European medical health officers and my colleague from the Department of Health will be in Committee later. Hon. Members might want to ask her about the matter in more detail.
 There is an issue when it comes to rats and Weil's disease, but more to the point is that in France this year, river levels were exceptionally low because of the heatwave. When river levels get low, and drains go into those rivers, there can be a concentration of different kinds of pollutants, and in those cases there may be a public health reason for putting restrictions on open water bathing. That is probably what was behind the restrictions. It is not just rats.

George Osborne: The Minister is being a little hard on the clause. As I understand it, it is an enabling clause, and says:
''The Secretary of State may by Order approve any code of practice (whether prepared by him or another person)''.
 It is extremely broad. As the Minister has conceded, the existing system has its faults and the guidance issued may not be as widely known as it should be. Surely the Minister should take advantage of the clause—I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth will press it—and give himself the powers to introduce a code of practice if he needs to.

Elliot Morley: If there were a case for such powers, we should consider it within the Bill. I do not object to that. However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on one point, on which we come back to the advice of the Better Regulation Task Force; where there is no need to legislate and where the same results can be obtained by a non-legislative route, that should be explored as a priority. That is the intention of the protocol. However, if the protocol was considered not to be effective, we might consider such powers in future.

Andy King: I take heart from what the Minister has said and I look forward to him and his officials reporting the result of the progress that has been made at a future all-party group, at which Opposition Members will be welcome. On that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 21 - Temporary sprinkler bans

'After section 76 of the WIA, there is inserted— 
 ''76A Temporary sprinkler bans 
 (1) If a water undertaker is of the opinion that a serious deficiency of water available for distribution by that undertaker exists or is threatened, that undertaker may, for such period as it thinks necessary, prohibit or restrict, as respects the whole or any part of its area, the use for the purpose of watering private gardens of any water supplied by that undertaker and distributed by means of a water sprinkler or similar apparatus. 
 (2) A water undertaker imposing a prohibition or restriction under this section shall, before it comes into force, give public notice of it, and of the date on which it will come into force, in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality affected by the prohibition or restriction. 
 (3) Any person who, at a time when a prohibition or restriction under this section is in force, contravenes its provisions shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 
 (4) Where a prohibition or restriction is imposed by a water undertaker under this section, charges made by the undertaker for the use of a sprinkler or similar apparatus shall be subject to a reasonable reduction and, in the case of a charge paid in advance, the undertaker shall make any necessary repayment or adjustment.''.'.—[Mr. Drew.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Drew: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am delighted to move the new clause at this particular moment, not least because it allows me to stand up and get the different parts of my body working again. The new clause is very straightforward and I hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister. It has the express support of one of the well-
 known water companies, which has asked my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and me to draw attention to a particular problem during water shortages. 
 The company has made it clear that it hopes that the era of hosepipe bans has come and gone. However, the use of sprinklers for watering gardens is a problem for the company during water shortages. At the moment there is nothing that it can do outside of a hosepipe ban, which is too restrictive. The company has asked me to argue that the new clause has considerable merit, and I am happy to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider how it might be included in the Bill; I am happy for the clause to be considered on Report. 
 I am wary about returning to earlier debates about golf courses. If we consider some of the less important ways in which water is used when there is a severe shortage, clearly watering gardens with sprinkler systems—which can seem rather an amusing side to the subject—is, in fact, a serious issue. If a hosepipe ban, which I hope will not happen, were to come about, and sprinklers were subject to little restriction, that would gall neighbours. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter and see whether there is a way of including the new clause in the Bill.

Diana Organ: I am interested in considering measures such as that which my hon. Friend's new clause seeks to introduce, including ways in which to restrict excessive and unnecessary use of an important resource such as water. However, has my hon. Friend any explanation for two things that occurred during the almost unprecedentedly dry summer? Why have we not heard that ''phut, phut, phut'' sound of sprinklers on lawns throughout the suburbs, as we might have done five or six years ago when there was a drought? Secondly, why are people not calling for a restriction on sprinklers? We have had a dry summer, but there has been sufficient water.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Contrary to what some might think, I do not go around in the middle of the night checking who has sprinklers on. I am merely relaying information.
 Even though we have had a very dry summer—I was talking to the Minister last week and he said it might be the driest summer on record—we have managed to deal with the problems of drought. The issue of sprinklers is potentially a real burden. If water companies say that they are a specific problem, we should take notice. I hope that the Minister can respond positively on those points.

Elliot Morley: I can give my hon. Friend some assurances. He is right about sprinklers; they are large water users. The subject was touched on briefly in a previous discussion. It is a long time since I had a sprinkler. When I did, I had to pay for a permit from Anglian Water to use it. As it happened, my children were small, and they used to spend a lot of time playing with it. They eventually jumped on it and broke it into a thousand pieces. I have not had one since. How's that for an environmentally friendly act?
 I am sure that my children did not know that is was one at the time, though.
 There may well be a case for a ban on sprinklers; that is an interesting point. It has crossed my mind, too, that there has not been a lot of controversy about people using sprinklers during this very dry summer and autumn. I would like to think that people are becoming more responsible and sensitive about water resource management, and that they think it better to let the lawn go yellow than to use large quantities of water. That is the excuse that I use about my lawn, anyway. 
 I assure my hon. Friend that section 76 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a power to impose temporary bans on hosepipes and similar appliances, and that includes sprinklers. There is a power in the Bill for banning sprinklers if it is considered that there is need to do so. 
 I hope that I have met my hon. Friend's concerns. I am happy to talk to him further on the subject if he feels that other measures need to be taken, but—in relation to water resource management—if there is a need for a ban, one can be put in place. As I am not involved with sprinklers, I cannot remember, but I am pretty sure that in some places, such as my area, anyone who wants a sprinkler has to have a meter fitted. That is not a bad policy.

David Drew: I thank the Minister for those reassuring words. It is true that in our area—I cannot speak categorically—a specific permit is needed for the use of a sprinkler. That presupposes that the permit could be withdrawn, so that is another means by which the use of sprinklers can be controlled. I am reassured that there are the means by which to do so, but we should make it clear that they are to be used in extremis. It is not something that an undertaker would do very willingly, but it draws attention to the fact that, rather than a wholesale ban on the use of water—

Robert Key: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Drew: Yes.

Robert Key: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the response of water companies in extreme situations is somewhat unimaginative? It is not just a case of the volume of water; it is a question of the water pressure available to other consumers, whether industrial or domestic. If water companies are seeking to put bans in place, it would be sensible to limit the hours, too, so that, for example, it would be possible to put a sprinkler on overnight. Secondly, should not water companies discriminate between domestic sprinklers for vegetables and those used on lawns?

David Drew: There is merit in what the hon. Gentleman says. Clearly, there may be reasons why someone needs a sprinkler system other than because they simply want to keep the garden green. They may be growing something on a semi-commercial basis in their garden, and that could be affected if there were a complete ban. There are reasons why it is probably not appropriate to take forward the new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 25 - Joint charging for water and sewerage services

'After section 144B of the WIA, there is inserted— 
 ''144BB Joint charging for water and sewerage services 
 With effect from April 1st 2004, notices of payment due from occupants of household premises in respect of— 
 (a) charges for sewerage services provided by a sewerage undertaker; and 
 (b) supplies of water provided by a water undertaker 
 shall be made jointly in single notice.''.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 With 10 minutes to go, we are on to the last group, comprising one new clause. The sitting demonstrates the generosity and flexibility of the Government in changing the programming of the Bill to allow two and a half hours of useful discussion this afternoon, but it also indicates the ability of MPs to fill the time available, which we have collectively done this afternoon. 
 This issue relates particularly to my part of the world in Sussex. I am not sure that it applies anywhere else. As hon. Members know, there are areas of the country in which the water supplier and the sewerage undertaker are different. Those companies either act in concert to provide one bill or send separate bills. Of course, in areas where the water and sewerage undertaker is the same, people are used to getting one bill. 
 It is good practice throughout the industry that if two companies are involved they work together to send out one bill. I understand from Water UK that that is now standard practice. However, there are pockets of the country, such as in my part of the world, where two bills are still sent out. My constituents receive one bill from South East Water for water and another from Southern Water for sewage disposal. 
 That can create problems, particularly if people have been used to receiving one bill. For example, a constituent moved from Brighton, where Southern Water supplied water and dealt with sewage disposal. She was used to receiving one bill. When she moved to Lewes, she received a bill from South East Water for her water and, not unreasonably, assumed that it covered the same services that Southern Water had supplied in Brighton. It turned out that that was not the case. For various reasons, Southern Water did not pick up on her moving into the property and no bill was received for the sewerage element for some considerable time. 
 It was with some amazement and unhappiness that—some 18 months later when the sewerage undertaker finally caught up with her—she received a bill going back some months for her occupancy of the property. Her view was that if there had been one bill that would not have happened. 
 It is all very well saying that she could have read the bill very carefully and distinguished between the arrangements in Lewes and those in Brighton. 
 Nevertheless, having been used to one bill, it was not unreasonable that she expected one bill. She was left with a backlog and a payment that was difficult to meet. She found the situation archaic and bizarre. 
 The new clause seeks to extend the good practice that is standard in most of the country where two companies are involved. It seeks to extend an almost universal practice to those small pockets of the country where two bills are still sent out and to give a deadline of 1 April 2004 for the new system to be put in place. 
 This is not the biggest issue in the Bill, but it is an inconvenience and a leftover. Good practice suggests that, if it can be done in most of the country, it can be done by South East Water and Southern Water and in those other pockets where the practice still has not been changed. If the Government are not prepared to accept the new clause, I hope that they will at least agree with my proposal and put some pressure on the water companies that are involved to bring about good practice and to eliminate a situation that still exists in some parts of the country.

Robert Key: Briefly, there are two parts of my constituency in which this practice occurs, and never in 20 years have I had any complaint from a constituent about the way the billing system works. There are pros and cons; for example, in encouraging efficiency and in the cost of sending out one bill rather than two, given the computerised nature of billing operations. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Elliot Morley: I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury that there are pros and cons. There are two separate undertakers in my area. Customers receive separate bills because they are receiving two separate services and they want to be clear about what they are paying for as part of the billing they receive.
 There may be a case for having joint arrangements in some parts of the country, and I understand that in some areas where there are separate water and sewerage services, voluntary arrangements exist to collect the bills. That should be encouraged when it suits the companies involved and it is cost effective to do so. One problem with the new clause is that it does not specify who is responsible for the cost of the collection charges, the sewerage or water undertaker. If we made joint billing compulsory, we would get into arguments about who should pay. The most efficient and cost-effective method should be used, whether that is through agreements and joint billing or separate billing. It is difficult to encapsulate that in such a new clause.

Norman Baker: I hear what the Minister says. I cannot believe that the administrative arrangements in the areas where joint billing has been voluntary agreed are different from those areas where separate billing still persists. The problem from that may not be common, but it exists.
 I understand why the Minister does not want the new clause, and I will not push the point. He may be right about the argument for local arrangements, but if he does not want to insist on one bill, he should tell the various companies in the areas where separate bills persist that it would be good practice for their bills to 
 say in large letters ''Water services only: this does not include sewerage'' or ''Sewerage services only: this does not include water''. That would mean that people would be in no doubt about what the bill is for. At the moment, some people are in doubt. 
 With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 26 - Metering

'(1) In section 142 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (powers of undertakers to charge), in subsection (2), ''(2A),'' is omitted. 
 (2) In section 142 of the Water Industry Act (charges schemes) subsections 2A and 2B are omitted. 
 (3) In section 143 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (charges schemes), in subsection (5)(a), ''in a case not falling within section 142(2A) above'' is omitted. 
 (4) In section 144A of the Water Industry Act 1991 (right of consumer to elect for charging by reference to volume), subsections (5), (6), (7), (8) and (10) are omitted. 
 (5) After subsection 144A of the Water Industry Act 1991 (Right of consumer to elect for charging by reference to volume), there is inserted— 
 ''144AA Arrangements for introduction of metering 
 (1) Where— 
 (a) water is supplied by a water undertaker to premises in which, or in any part of which, a person has his home; 
 (b) charges in respect of those premises are fixed by virtue of any charges scheme under section 143 above without reference to the volume of water supplied; and 
 (c) such other conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State through regulation are also satisfied in relation to the premises, and to the occupants of those premises, 
 the undertaker may at any time give the consumer a notice (in this section referred to as a ''company measured charges notice'') allowing the undertaker to fix charges in respect of the supply by reference to the volume of water supplied. 
 (2) Before making such regulations as are permitted by subsection (1) above the Secretary of State shall— 
 (a) consult— 
 (i) the Authority, 
 (ii) the Council, 
 (iii) the Assembly, 
 (iv) relevant undertakers, 
 (v) the Environment Agency; and 
 such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and 
 (b) publish the draft regulations for public consultation. 
 (3) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to— 
 (a) the interests of— 
 (i) households with an occupant or occupants with low incomes; 
 (ii) households with an occupant or occupants of pensionable age; 
 (iii) households with an occupant or occupants who have a medical condition which causes significant levels of water use; 
 (b) the furtherance of water conservation; 
 (c) the particular circumstances in areas of water scarcity; and 
 (d) the promotion of economy and efficiency on the part of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act in carrying out the duties of a relevant undertaker. 
 (4) A water undertaker may not give effect to a company measured charges notice before the end of a period determined in accordance with the undertaker's charges scheme. 
 (5) If and so long as a water undertaker is entitled under subsection (4) above to fix charges for the supply of water in respect of any premises by reference to the volume of water supplied, a sewerage undertaker is under a corresponding obligation to fix charges in respect of foul water drainage provided by the sewerage undertaker in respect of those premises by reference to that volume. 
 (6) Any charges scheme under section 143 above— 
 (a) must contain provision for determining the period mentioned in subsection (4) above, and 
 (b) shall have effect subject to the preceding provisions of this section. 
 (7) In this section ''household premises'' has the meaning as defined in section 17C above.''. 
 (6) In section 144B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (restriction on change in basis of charging), for subsection (2) there is substituted— 
 ''(2) Where this subsection applies, a relevant undertaker may not by virtue of any charges scheme under section 143 above begin to fix the charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume unless either— 
 (a) the consumer— 
 (i) has given the undertaker a measured charges notice under section 144A above, or 
 (ii) has consented to the charges in respect of the premises being so fixed, or 
 (b) the undertaker has given the consumer a company measured charges notice under section 144A above, or 
 (c) the fixing of charges in respect of those premises by reference to volume is required under section 148A below, or 
 (d) there has been a change in the occupation of the premises and no charges have yet been demanded from the person who has become the consumer.'' 
 (7) After section 144B of the Water Industry Act 1991, there is inserted— 
 ''144C Metering charges 
 Charges and other amounts to which this section applies shall not, by virtue of anything contained— 
 (a) in this Chapter; 
 (b) in any local statutory provision; 
 (c) in any charges scheme under section 143 above; or 
 (d) in any agreement entered into on or after 1st September 1989, be recoverable by a relevant undertaker from any person if they have been fixed wholly or partly by reference to a rating valuation list or are otherwise determined, whether directly or indirectly, by reference to any value or other amount specified at any time in such a list. 
 (2) This section applies to— 
 (a) charges in respect of any services provided at any time after the end of 31st March 2018 by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions; and 
 (b) amounts of any other description which such an undertaker, in exercise of any power conferred by or under any enactment, requires any person to pay in respect of any period ending after that date or in respect of anything done after that date. 
 (3) In this section ''rating valuation list'' means a list which is or has at any time been maintained, for the purposes of rating, under section 41 or 52 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c.41), section 67 of the General Rate Act 1967 (c.9) or any other enactment.'' 
 (8) After section 148 of the Water Industry Act 1991 there is inserted— 
 ''148A Charges by volume, etc 
 (1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall, not later than the end of 31st March 2018, by regulations require all water undertakers to fix charges in respect of the supply by reference to the volume of water supplied for all household premises and to instal any meter in household premises to be used in determining the amount of any such charges. 
 (2) The requirements of subsection (1) above do not apply— 
 (a) to household premises— 
 (i) that share a supply pipe with one or more other premises; 
 (ii) where it is not reasonably practicable to instal any meter to be used in determining the amount of any charges; and 
 (b) to other household premises as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 (3) The Secretary of State may be regulations require all water undertakers to ensure that all customers in household premises, such as are excluded from the provisions of subsection (1) above by subsection (2) above, are charged by reference to the volume of water supplied and that meters are installed in household premises to be used in determining the amount of any such charges; and that this is achieved by such times as may be prescribed. 
 (4) Before making such regulations as are required by subsections (1) to (3) above the Secretary of State shall— 
 (a) consult— 
 (i) the Authority, 
 (ii) the Council, 
 (iii) the Assembly, 
 (iv) relevant undertakers, 
 (v) the Environment Agency; and 
 (vi) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and 
 (b) publish the draft regulations for public consultation. 
 (5) In making regulations under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to— 
 (a) the interests of— 
 (i) households with an occupant or occupants with low incomes; 
 (ii) households with an occupant or occupants of pensionable age; 
 (iii) households with an occupant or occupants who have a medical condition which causes significant levels of water use; 
 (b) the furtherance of water conservation; 
 (c) the particular circumstances in areas of water scarcity; and 
 (d) the promotion of economy and efficiency on the part of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act in carrying out the duties of a relevant undertaker. 
 (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for transferring to the Authority powers and functions for the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) above, including— 
 (a) modification of appointment conditions to meet the requirements of subsections (1) to (3) above, and 
 (b) imposition of penalties under section 22A above following the failure of a water undertaker to meet the requirements of sections (1) to (3) above. 
 (7) In this section ''household premises'' has the meaning as defined in section 17C above.''.'.—[Norman Baker.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 23 October at five minutes to Nine o'clock.